Reality is the Wall You Smack into When You’re Wrong

--There is a mystery here but let us understand this is not the be all and end all of human existence.-- Dittos. tribune7

Trib, 30 years ago it was Montserrat's turn (Hugo) and Jamaica's turn (Gilbert, then Ivan in 2004). MNI then went through the still unfinished volcano crisis and the aftermath of a dragged out, flawed rebuilding and redevelopment which is feeding right into the current political crisis here that takes up my focus just now. We cannot always count on being spared, and it is not just a matter of our lack of prudence why we suffer disasters but our refusal to act aright is a contribution. Can you believe people have rebuilt villages on the flanks of the volcano in St Vincent? 1500 dead in 1902, IIRC dozens in 1979, as the big pyroclastic flow went west that time not east. We need to wake up to reality and to the need for prudence. Beyond, God grant grace and help us all to be good neighbours, reaching out to those now in need. This evening I heard of how after tropical storm Erica (two years ago), in relocating villages Dominica built 300 houses. Post Maria, all the roofs are gone. On the EC side of my family [wife's side], there has been loss of life in Dominica, no details as of yet. Let us mourn with those who mourn, and let us ponder those on whom the tower of Siloam fell as well as those whose blood was mixed with that of their sacrifices by the rulers of the day and the warning save we repent we should all likewise perish in our sins and follies. There is a mystery here but let us understand this is not the be all and end all of human existence. KF kairosfocus

The reports coming out of Puerto Rico are very bad. Prayers continue, KF. tribune7

Eugen & Trib: Sadly, Dominica took a direct eyewall hit from a Cat 5 hurricane. We got maybe 100+ in gusts likely 80 mph steady, did some damage. The eye passed south and west of us, with a tight high intensity core. Took days for power to be back and the local water reservoir was empty, it will take 1 - 2 days to pump it full again. I gather Puerto Rico and parts of the VI took hard blows too but net access has not been very good. The local political crisis continues and metastasises requiring main focus. KF PS: Marriage is not an arbitrary phenomenon and is connected to our core nature as two-sexed creatures taking 20 - 30 years to mature and reproduce effectively. The critical need to civilise males across the first three decades of life and to productively channel our energies in that cause will be the utter undoing of folly and absurdity under colour of law. Already, we see news about how "science" tells us that having children is very bad for us. What utter folly: https://www.indy100.com/article/worst-decision-you-can-ever-make-have-a-child-science-research-parent-sleep-sex-money-video-7960906?utm_source=indy&utm_medium=top5&utm_campaign=i100 (I thought the UK Independent had good journalists and editors.) kairosfocus

“The secular state can sanction marriage however it sees fit.” What? Where in the world do you live? In the United States we are governed by the U.S. Constitution which begins with three words: “We the People…” It is the people who control the so-called state and not vice-versa. In other words, the state is not a conscious being with an independent will of its’ own that can decide what is right for society. The problem with same-sex marriage is that oppresses people who disagree with it. For example, coercing people to participate in same-sex wedding ceremonies when it conflicts with their deeply held religious beliefs. john_a_designer

The secular state can sanction marriage however it sees fit. It makes no difference to me. Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's. I personally think that homosexual marriage is unhealthy for society and that it reveals just how far we have fallen. It is not the cause of our fall, but merely a symptom of how great the fall already is. Truth Will Set You Free

I agree wholeheartedly with the following quote.

“I believe that marriage is not just a bond but a sacred bond between a man and a woman. [It’s a] fundamental bedrock principle that exists between a man and a woman, going back into the mists of history as one of the founding, foundational institutions of history and humanity and civilization, and that its primary, principal role during those millennia has been the raising and socializing of children for the society into which they are to become adults.”

Unfortunately, when the politics changed the person who made the statement above changed her views. So what are we to conclude from that? That political group think is what determines moral truth? When the herd changes direction we must all change direction. If there are no children involved what is the point of the state being legally involved in a personal relationship between two consenting adults? I don’t see any. john_a_designer

Of course Barry, If you think having same sex relations will result in a pregnancy, you will smack into the wall of reality. That's why, for the most part, same sex couples do not expect to reproduce sexually. Knowledge is independent of anyone's belief, intent or purpose. For example, regardless if a heterosexual couple believes, wants or intends to reproduce by having sex, if one of them is medically incapable of actually reproducing sexually, they will run into the same wall, etc. So, what's your point? critical rationalist

Pindi-- follow the conversation and keep it in context. My comment in # 73 was in response to Dave's question in #69. "BTW, is there support for your position that sterile couples should marry only if they plan to raise a child?" In fairness, my answer concerned an inability to function sexually rather than sterility -- something not expected to be known at the time of marriage -- but the point stands. Marriage historically has been based on the expectation of procreation. And I probably should have objected to the adjective "sterile" in Dave's description of my position as it is unnecessary. My position is better stated as civil marriage benefits should only apply to couples planning on raising children. Why would you disagree with it? tribune7

JAD, One question that occurred to me earlier: You mentioned above that you don't believe there is a good reason for the state to get involved in mere romantic relationships. Suppose we have a heterosexual couple who would like to engage in such a relationship; they plan to cohabitate and engage in sexual relationships, but not to have any children. This could be due to a number of factors such as age of the woman, injury, or simply lack of desire to procreate. Is it ok for them to move in together? daveS

JAD, I for one wouldn't expect same-sex marriage to have any significant positive effect on "illegitimacy". Perhaps it could have some small effect on the raising of children outside of marriage through adoption, but I don't know whether this actually happens. daveS

One thing that gets left out of the discussion over same sex marriage is the society wide effect of illegitimacy.

[W]hen President Lyndon Johnson launched the War on Poverty in 1964, 93 percent of children born in the United States were born to married parents. Since that time, births within marriage have declined sharply. In 2010, only 59 percent of all births in the nation occurred to married couples. The flip side of the decline in marriage is the growth in the out-of-wedlock childbearing birth rate, meaning the percentage of births that occur to women who are not married when the child is born… throughout most of U.S. history, out-of-wedlock childbearing was rare. When the War on Poverty began in the mid-1960s, only 6 percent of children were born out of wedlock. Over the next four and a half decades, the number rose rapidly. In 2010, 40.8 percent of all children born in the U.S. were born outside of marriage.

http://www.heritage.org/poverty-and-inequality/report/marriage-americas-greatest-weapon-against-child-poverty The report goes on to examine the correlation between marriage and child poverty.

Not surprisingly, single-parent families make up the overwhelming majority of all poor families with children in the U.S. Overall, single-parent families comprise one-third of all families with children… 71 percent of poor families with children are headed by single parents. By contrast, 73 percent of all non-poor families with children are headed by married couples.

Same-sex marriage can’t and won’t do anything to solve that problem. Again, two women can’t make a baby, nor can two men. But, of course our atheist interlocutors can always make the inane and stupid argument, “well, it can’t do any more harm.” The truth is same-sex marriage is cause dreamed up by affluent and “elite” cultural Marxist ideologues who have contempt for traditional moral values. Tragically their morally bankrupt world view doesn’t help anyone; it only make society worse. john_a_designer

tribune7 - so what was the relevance of all the stuff about procreation? Pindi

Pindi -- is that DaveS does not have a right to be married -- No, Pindi. I am saying that the inability to perform sex has historically been grounds to deny marriage i.e. the basis is old and traditional. tribune7

Prayers for you KF. tribune7

Kairos I hope hurricane will go over open waters, enough of destruction. Stay safe! Eugen

Folks, Maria just hit Cat 5 and looks to track over Dominica (ouch for them after Erica) then perhaps 40 - 60 mi SW of Montserrat. At least, full hurricane force winds are in a 30 mi diameter ring about the 12 mi across eye. Maybe, 6 inches rain here too. KF PS: No-one has a RIGHT to marry, as no-one owes a duty to marry you. There is a FREEDOM to marry, circumscribed by various limits for all sorts of reasons; this already raises questions about the level of thought that is at work behind various opinions and comments. Further to this, there is a word magic game going on under false colour of law, that pretends that marriage is an arbitrary arrangement that can freely be redefined at will per agit prop power plays. The grand scale willful blindness to the naturally evident creation order reflected in marriage will come back to haunt us. Posterity, for cause, will rise up and call this generation accursed and hell-bent on suicidal perversity. Notice, the challenge of productively channelling the energies of men in the first three decades of life as the first challenge of a sustainable civil order. I don't think we understand the matches we are playing with. kairosfocus

Ah, always interesting discussions about marriage with our atheist friends. We have seen this before so Christians should get ready to face piles of great arguments generated by: http://sjwinsult.com Eugen

tribune7, contrary to DaveS, I do speak legalese, and I'm afraid the dictionary definition does not support your point. It says, as DaveS notes, that marriage can be legal without consummation. Failure to consummate is a grounds for a spouse to apply for an anullment of the marriage. Until they do that the marriage is quite legal, and if they apply it is very likely that a judge wouldn't grant it. So far as as I can gather, what you and JAD are saying, is that DaveS does not have a right to be married (based on the fact that he and his wife did not have children). Is that correct? Pindi

John, yes. Marriage came about because of the need for general society to deal with babies -- wanted and unwanted. What some seem to be missing is that civil marriage is basically the rest of us via the law involving ourselves in one's sex life. The pendulum has swung so that proponents of unrestrictive marriage law are demanding that society ignore the sex activity (and work caused by it) but still grant the benefits for traditionally assumed necessary work (procreation, child rearing). I missed this but Dave said "It’s a huge taboo (incest) in our society and around the world, for multiple reasons (association with abuse, for example), . . .." For Pete's sake, that applies to homosexuality too Even the abuse: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/06/media_nervous_on_new_duke_u_ra.html http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mum-lesbian-lover-charged-sons-7736067 tribune7

JAD, You are correct that I, at least, have not addressed your argument about natural law. I also am not trying to convince anyone that my personal opinions are morally binding on anyone. I am interested in the fact that you seem not to support marriage between a man and a woman who cannot bear children, which would be quite a ways out of the mainstream, as far as I can tell. We can at least share the conclusions we have each drawn about who should and should not be allowed to get married, and perhaps some of the reasoning behind these conclusions. I don't think anyone will change their position here, but it might provide some food for later thought. daveS

Once again this is the premise of my argument: “Procreation is the only natural law BASIS for marriage.” What do I mean by basis? Here are a couple of dictionary definitions: * the bottom of something considered as its foundation (Merriam-Webster) *the underlying support or foundation for an idea, argument, or process. (Google) I am not arguing there are no exceptions. (We talk about those if we get to that point.) However, the exceptions are not the BASIS. So far Pindi and DaveS have not really addressed the premise of the argument. Again, biologically two women cannot make a baby, nor can two men. (Those seatbelts don’t click.) Historically and traditionally marriage has always been defined in terms of procreation and raising children in a happy and healthy environment (a family.) Pindi and Dave want to reject all that and redefine marriage for everyone else on a completely different basis, but why? So far they haven’t given us any kind of logical justification other than their personal opinions. They won’t or can’t even tell us why their personal opinions are morally binding on everyone else. john_a_designer

DaveS -- With me it's not about aesthetics, or even personal morality, but objective things i.e. tax burdens, safe streets, etc. There is a need for civil marriage but this need should not go beyond what the need is for which would not include old army buddies trying to beat the tax man. You are correct that today people incapable of sex can be considered married. Historically, however, they couldn't. --I don’t see an actual father and son in the Jeremy Irons story wishing to get married, but rather JI suggesting it to be a possibility-- Which would most certainly be (unfairly) realized if the estate was big enough. tribune7

tribune7,

Actually, its basis is very old and traditional:

I don't speak legalese, but doesn't this note:

2. The marriage, when otherwise legal, is complete without this; for it is a maxim of law, borrowed from the civil, law, that consensus, non concubitus, facit nuptias. Co. Litt. 33; Dig. 50, 17, 30; 1 Black. Com. 434.

mean that a marriage is complete without consummation? daveS

tribune7,

–I think — Here you are saying civil marriage should be based on (your own) aesthetics regardless of societal necessity.

No, as I stated in my post to KF, societal necessity surely plays a role. When I say "I think", I just mean I'm expressing an opinion, and in this case, I'm pretty certain that I won't be able to "justify" it to you since our worldviews are quite different.

–(not closely related)– And here you are conceding that marriage is not a right, but as you have said sexual activity should not be a criteria for marriage what would be the rational to prevent father/son brother/sister first cousins etc. from getting married?

It's a huge taboo in our society and around the world, for multiple reasons (association with abuse, for example), whether there is sex involved or not. BTW, first cousins can get married in some states but not in others, which reflects that fact that these restrictions are necessarily somewhat arbitrary.

As the possibility is obvious citing a case should not be necessary. But yes: []

It's also possible that a man might want to marry the left front hubcab on his '67 Pontiac Bonneville, but I doubt this has been realized. I don't see an actual father and son in the Jeremy Irons story wishing to get married, but rather JI suggesting it to be a possibility (which we both accept). On the other hand, I know several same-sex married couples, and as far as I can tell, each is an asset to the community. Some of these people have already raised healthy children in previous relationships, so they've fulfilled that duty. So I look at my wife and myself, and ask "what societal needs are we fulfilling that these couples are not?", and I can't come up with anything. daveS

--BTW, is there support for your position that sterile couples should marry only if they plan to raise a child? I have never heard of such a requirement.-- Actually, its basis is very old and traditional: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Consummation+of+marriage I'll grant my position is more modern and not as extreme. tribune7

KF,

DS, why are you imposing ANY constraints on those who may or may not use the label on some sort of civil-recognised, friendship with “benefits and thrills” partnership?

"benefits and thrills"? This trivializes the issue, in my view. As I stated above, I think two people who wish to be life partners, with some restrictions, should be allowed to marry, regardless of whether they intend to have children or whether they wish to indulge in "benefits and thrills". But to answer your question, you are correct that I have concerns about stability and cultural sensitivity. Personally, I'm very conservative regarding some of these issues---for example, I would never consider having children outside of marriage. I'm not going to respond to the graphic details of the rest of your post---you will note that tribune7 and I have gone so far as to assume these hypothetical relationships do not involve sexual activity Do you have any comment on the requirement that marrying couples commit to raising a child? I was legally married at a courthouse (no wedding ceremony), and recited a vow something like the following:

I, ____, take you, ____, to be my lawfully wedded (husband/wife), to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.

and did not promise to raise children, and thus do not believe there is anything wrong with my own childless marriage. daveS

--I think -- Here you are saying civil marriage should be based on (your own) aesthetics regardless of societal necessity. --(not closely related)-- And here you are conceding that marriage is not a right. As you have said, however, sexual activity should not be a criteria for marriage what would be the rational to prevent father/son brother/sister first cousins etc. from getting married? --Do you know of any cases where an actual father and son expressed interest in marriage?-- As the possibility is obvious citing a case should not be necessary. But yes: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9972011/Jeremy-Irons-claims-gay-marriage-laws-could-lead-to-a-father-marrying-his-son.html tribune7

DS, why are you imposing ANY constraints on those who may or may not use the label on some sort of civil-recognised, friendship with "benefits and thrills" partnership? Could it be, that you fear destabbilisation of a foundational institution ("family") and/or genetic breakdown (incest "taboos")? Once that is in the door, if- it- feelz- good- do- it hedonism is out the door and the proper question is, what lines are reasonable to sustain a sound society across time given the challenge of high- sexual- energy, potentially ruinously destructive young males in the first three decades of life. The answer to that question readily comes up as the naturally evident creation order anchored framework we term marriage, with monogamy highly favoured as even the injection of concubines (sleeping with the handmaidens) or so-called open marriages is a patently destabilising pattern. Where also, certain sex acts commonly or formerly termed sodomy or buggery in law -- involving anal and even oral-genital contact -- are patently insanitary and obvious disease vectors thus in the interests of the community to discourage or even ban [the anal case]. Recall, e.g. fellatio is fast and easily done in just about any corner or alley, and is a proved vector for rapid spreading of diseases. Cunnilingus is now being associated with a cluster of diseases too (ask your dentist or ENT specialist etc). I am not even going to more than point to the psychological and relationship/bonding implications of benumbing conscience and addicting people to promiscuity, porn and escalating perversity. Our civilisation has set a hellish fire loose and is burning up as it seems hell-bent on wrecking marriage. Our folly will be evident to all and a byword to future generations who will rise up to curse us for the havoc we are even now wreaking but seem too benumbed and endarkened to recognise. To our everlasting shame. KF kairosfocus

tribune7, BTW, is there support for your position that sterile couples should marry only if they plan to raise a child? I have never heard of such a requirement. daveS

tribune7, I think that two consenting (not closely related) adults who want to be "life partners" (with or without children) should be allowed to marry. The two Vietnam vets could certainly fit in this category---I know a few same-sex married couples, and as far as I can tell, their relationships are quite similar to the relationship I have with my wife. Father/son marriage? Do you know of any cases where an actual father and son expressed interest in marriage? If so, then I'll address it. daveS

You're OK with the old army buddies getting married even if they don't necessarily love each other but you are against the father marrying the son even though the father deeply loves the son. Why is that? Remember nobody is interested in sex in either of these situations. tribune7

That you can't figure out where I'm going with this or that a father should marry his son? tribune7

tribune7, My answer is no. [A father and son should not be allowed to marry] daveS

Dave S, now take it a step further. Should a father be allowed to marry his son? Let's see if you can figure out where I am going with this and the problem with anybody wanting to get married for anything. tribune7

tribune7, Thanks. My answer to your question is "yes". I don't view engaging in sexual relations (or raising children, for that matter) as an essential part of marriage. daveS

Dave S -- My answer to your question is conditional i.e. yes they should be allowed to get married if they are going to commit to raising a child and the rest of us (i.e. the civil in civil marriage) deem they are serious and responsible. No, otherwise. Pindi -- no sexual basis in providing a stable base for children? And where do you think the children come from in most cases? My answer to you would the same as the one to Dave. tribune7

tribune7, is there a sexual basis to providing a stable base for children to thrive? No, I would hope not. I answered your questions, now you can answer mine. Should a man and woman who are unable to, or unwilling to, have children be allowed to marry? Pindi

tribune7, I will gladly answer your question, but please answer mine first. :) daveS

Dave S--Suppose two veterans (one male, one female) of the Afghanistan war would like to get married. -- Let me give you another wrinkle. Suppose two old veterans of Vietnam (both male) would like to get married? Should they? Even if they aren't the slightest bit interested in sex? tribune7

Pindi -- One of them is to provide a stable base for children to thrive, Hmm. I think you are starting to get it. Now, is or is there not a sexual component to this? tribune7

KF, I can see that, and even mentioned that "most Americans" probably can too in my post. However, it always helps to be explicit, and say to Pindi's and my questions, "yes, even sterile male/female couples should be allowed to marry". daveS

tibune7 I think there are multiple purposes of marriage. One would be pretty naive to imagine that guaranteeing love or sexual release two of them though. One of them is to provide a stable base for children to thrive, which I assume is the one you are getting at? Pindi

DS, pardon but if you cannot see the point that marriage and family have a BASE in requisites of procreation and nurture but extend reasonably to what is consistent with that, something is deeply wrong; driven by distorting rhetoric. Maybe, we have forgotten the foundation of the Judaeo-Christian tradition in an infertile marriage that was then blessed with a child of promise, Isaac. Then, look again at the illustration in the OP and understand that no man is an island, where also hedonistic philosophies and their crude manifestations in a culture of unbridled lusts and addictions are self defeating and ultimately suicidal for a civilisation. Such as, ours. KF kairosfocus

tribune7, If I can jump in, I readily admit that I can't comprehensively summarize the purpose of marriage, however, I don't think most Americans, at least, think it's solely about procreation. Suppose two veterans (one male, one female) of the Afghanistan war would like to get married. Unfortunately, both have been severely injured in the war and no longer have the organs necessary to produce children. Are we agreed that these two people should be able to marry, despite the fact that they cannot procreate? daveS

KF, yup and my simple questions remain under answered by P. tribune7

PPPS: Materialism vivisection: http://www.scifiwright.com/on-materialism/ kairosfocus

PPS: More food for bleak thought from Wright: http://www.scifiwright.com/2017/09/last-crusade-three-centers-of-power/ -- if you think he is fundamentally wrong, you had better have solid reasons and facts as to why. kairosfocus

Trib, we can see why, collectively, we are so recklessly playing destructive games with the foundations of sustainable civilisation under false colour of law: sound family. They forget or dismiss the critical challenge to civilise young males within the first three decades of life, on pain of ruin -- biology is enough to stamp the critical importance of sound family into the minds of most girls (absent saturation level agit prop . . . as is going on all around). Then, too many of those who impose contrary to the naturally evident order wish to project that only bigotry could object to what they are doing, and in a few steps it's punch a nazi. The absurd march of folly thus manifests itself as the demonic twisting of what is good that is the very definition of evil, backed up by the demand to put darkness for light and to call light darkness; thus enabling evil. Utterly revealing, utterly short-sighted and utterly ruinous. KF PS: J C Wright here has food for sobering thought (which will predictably be studiously ignored or derided by those hell-bent on the current civilisational march of suicidal folly): http://www.scifiwright.com/reason/ kairosfocus

Barry,

You are confused. See my latest post. Darwinism says there is a link between fitness and truth. Except when there is not.

I may be - I can't tell if there's anything in #36 that you disagree with.

Donald Hoffman disagrees with you: “Evolution has shaped us with perceptions that allow us to survive. They guide adaptive behaviours. But part of that involves hiding from us the stuff we don’t need to know.

Read the two statements again. Not only does Hoffman not disagree with me, he just pretty much paraphrased what I said in the previous paragraph.

Again, Darwin predicts that believing the truth is adaptive. Darwinism also predicts that believing a falsehood is adaptive. One thing is perfectly clear: Darwinism does not predict that believing the truth is necessarily adaptive

Other than the odd phrasing, I agree. I would say that there are falsehoods that may be adaptive (e.g the paranoia regarding what's in the bushes). One could also say that eyes reveal light wavelengths around us, except when they don't; and ears reveal sounds around us, except when they don't. But the mocking tone would be just as puzzling. goodusername

Pindi -- of course you are not interested in answering my questions. You have not thought about the matter, which likely means that you can't. I'll try once more and keep it simple: What is the purpose of civil marriage? Is it about guaranteeing eternal love? Guaranteeing regular sexual release? What? Give it a shot. Or not. tribune7

ET, I’m not debating that issue. JAD (and perhaps tribune7) seem to be suggesting that it is defined as a union between a man and a woman who are able to, and intend to, procreate.

It should be defined that way as that was the intention- get married and have kids. There isn't any need to get married without the kid part. ET

trbune7, I can see you are asking me questions. I am not interested in answering your stupid and irrelevant questions. If you are interested in giving me your opinion on whether the union of a man and a woman who don't want to, or can't, procreate, fits the definition of marriage, then do so. If you don't want to discuss that issue that's fine. Pindi

ET, I'm not debating that issue. JAD (and perhaps tribune7) seem to be suggesting that it is defined as a union between a man and a woman who are able to, and intend to, procreate. Pindi

Pindi- Marriage was defined as a union between a man and a woman. Someone changed the definition to suit their needs. ET

Pindi: huh? I'm asking you questions. What do you think the purpose of civil marriage is? Should a father be allowed to marry his son? Why not? tribune7

tribune7: huh? Are you comparing a couple who can't procreate with a father marrying his son? Pindi

Pindi, what do you think the purpose of civil marriage is? Should a father be allowed to marry his son? tribune7

JAD, no, I am just saying that by your logic, heterosexual couples who don't want to, or are unable to, procreate, should not have their relationships acknowledged as marriages. And that seems to me to be an absurd result. Pindi

Barry: Again, Darwin predicts that believing the truth is adaptive.

Your point in post #38 is that, if I understand you correctly, that Darwinians contradict themselves. Ok. But I think it is appropriate to stress that, in Darwinism, there is no basis for this particular prediction. Natural selection only filters behavior and is blind for the truth value of beliefs.

Plantinga: ... natural selection is directly interested only in behavior, not belief, and that it is interested in belief, if at all, only indirectly, by virtue of the relation between behavior and belief.

Origenes

GUN

I’m actually glad to see you describe it as a strawman and that you recognize that there’s a link between fitness and the brain’s ability to discern reality.

You are confused. See my latest post. Darwinism says there is a link between fitness and truth. Except when there is not.

But it would be strange to take that to mean that what we see is therefore unrelated to the truth.

Donald Hoffman disagrees with you: “Evolution has shaped us with perceptions that allow us to survive. They guide adaptive behaviours. But part of that involves hiding from us the stuff we don’t need to know. Again, Darwin predicts that believing the truth is adaptive. Darwinism also predicts that believing a falsehood is adaptive. One thing is perfectly clear: Darwinism does not predict that believing the truth is necessarily adaptive (as Sev believes). Barry Arrington

Pindi, Let me repeat myself: “Procreation is the only natural law BASIS for marriage.” (emphasis added) Romantic attraction is a secondary reason. I didn’t say that it was bad or illegitimate. I said it isn’t the BASIS. To claim that it is, is to redefine what marriage is. And yes, redefining marriage that way is both pointless and absurd. I don’t see there would be any compelling interest for the state to be involved in relationships that are just romantic. What are you implying? You can’t be involved in relationship without the state licensing it? What are the consequences if they don’t get licenced? If there are no consequences, what’s the point? That just adds another level of absurdity to an already absurd situation. john_a_designer

Barry,

Straw man. I never said there is not.

I’m actually glad to see you describe it as a strawman and that you recognize that there’s a link between fitness and the brain’s ability to discern reality. I’ve spoken with those that believe that Darwinism claims that fitness and truth are completely decoupled. But if that’s the case I don’t think the example of Oog is a good one, as Oog is obviously doomed as soon as his luck runs out. If I traveled back in time and saw Oog playing hide and seek with tigers, I would assume that Oog is suffering from advanced syphilis or some kind of massive head injury, and also that this affliction must be very recent as he’s obviously not long for this world. He’s obviously someone in need of a caregiver. A better example would be the classic example of the caveman hearing rustling in nearby bushes. The odds may be 1/1000 or 1/100 of it being a panther, but at the time where the caveman hears the rustling it might be better for him to think the odds are closer to 50/50, even though that’s likely a distorted view of reality. In this case there might be such a thing as a healthy dose of paranoia. I read the book that the Pinker quote comes from, but it’s been many years and don’t remember much about it at this point. But IIRC, and as I think you agree, Pinker does argue that our brains did generally evolve for the ability to discern reality and generally has that ability (it would hardly make sense to become a scientist if one believed that our brains didn’t have such an ability) but as our brains didn’t evolve directly for truth, there are quirks and exceptions – in other words he was making an argument for why we aren’t better at it. I remember he said something similar about vision: Our eyes didn’t evolve to collect all the photons out there. Our eyes evolved to only collect certain information, in certain circumstances, that’s useful for survival. We only see certain wavelengths, for instance, and there are all kinds of optical illusions, like mirages. But it would be strange to take that to mean that what we see is therefore unrelated to the truth. If I see a rock, I’m not going to walk into it – I’ll probably trip or hurt my foot. But I also realize that, being that vision evolved for “fitness not truth”, that my vision is limited, but limited in ways that are somewhat predictable. goodusername

For some reason in these comments I see a strong correlation between religious belief in Evolution and religious belief in Unbuckled Rainbow Seat Belts. I think stupidity may be the most recent common ancestor. Andrew asauber

Seversky @29

Sev: By the time of the “caveman” the human brain was already an incredibly complex organ, probably little different from our own in terms of the capacity for consciousness and basic intelligence.

Let's be very clear about one thing: you are not allowed to start with where we are now and assume that evolution somehow produced it. The claim that evolution can produce such is under debate.

Sev:

Origenes: Contrary to your assumption, Oog, under Darwinism, has no free rational choice between several responses to a tiger. Instead Oog is a biological automaton and natural selection has reduced Oog’s palette of responses to one single blind response with survival value.

I doubt that Oog was any more of a biological automaton than we are. As I wrote above, he probably was capable of the same basic intelligence as we are.

If so, then the question is: can evolution produce Oog as a being capable of the same basic intelligence as we are. Again, what you cannot do is simply assume it and suppose that evolution somehow gobbled Oog’s ‘basic intelligence’ together.

Sev: How that came about is still unknown.

Here is what you, according to Darwinism, have to work with: random beliefs and natural selection. Now the question is: can you get from there to ‘basic intelligence’? In post #21 I have argued that this is not possible. Where are your counter-arguments? Origenes

GUN:

Sure, Darwinism likely means our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth

At least you understand the standard Darwinian line. You are way ahead of Sev. Move to the front of the class. By the way, you might want to tell Sev that "Darwinism" is a thing.

but it’s not as if there’s no link between survival and having a brain that is capable of learning about its environment

Straw man. I never said there is not. Pinker again: “our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. Sometimes truth is adaptive, but sometimes it is not.” Eric Baum: “Sometimes you are more likely to survive and propagate if you believe a falsehood than if you believe the truth.” Notice the use of the term "sometimes" in both quotes. Truth is adaptive "sometimes." Believing a false narrative is adaptive "sometimes." Thus, under the standard Darwinian narrative, truth is adaptive except when it is not. That is the beauty of Darwinism, it explains everything -- and its opposite -- with equal alacrity. Barry Arrington

JAD, I don't have any contempt for traditional values. TBH, contempt is an emotion I rarely indulge. But I just wonder how procreation can be the only non absurd basis for marriage. Leaving aside same sex couples, by that statement you condemn the millions of people who do not wish to, or are unable to, have children, to an absurd relationship. Pindi

Example: Oog the caveman thinks Saber Toothed tigers are fun to play with. But he also thinks the best way to play with tigers is to run and hide. Both ideas are contrary to reality. But in combination they result in his survival. Oog is fit under Darwinism’s definition of fit.

So of all the possible actions Oog could have done, by an astronomical stroke of luck he chose an action that results in him not getting eaten. Sometimes people hit the lottery, but they are unlikely to keep hitting the lottery. What’s a good over/under on how long he lives after the tiger encounter? 20 minutes? Sure, Darwinism likely means our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth, but it's not as if there's no link between survival and having a brain that is capable of learning about its environment. There’s a reason those with advanced dementia, the severely mentally handicapped, etc require caregivers. goodusername

Sev,

Thank you for citing Varki and Brower’s work. . . .Which makes it interesting that you would even refer to it given that sort of untestable speculation is usually dismissed as just another Darwinian just-so story here on UD.

I'm not saying I agree with Varki and Brower. Nevertheless, it is the standard Darwinist line. We are not debating about whether the standard Darwinist line is true; do try to keep up. I am educating you about what the standard Darwinist line is, because your initial comment at 13 demonstrated that you are ignorant of it. Even after your education, however, you still don't seem ready to give up on your idiosyncratic view that Darwinian theory states that truth is always adaptive. If Varki and Brower don't convince you that you are in error about Darwinian theory, maybe other prominent Darwinists will. How about Steven Pinker? He writes: "our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. Sometimes truth is adaptive, but sometimes it is not.” How about Eric Baum? He writes: "Sometimes you are more likely to survive and propagate if you believe a falsehood than if you believe the truth." The thing that is most amusing about your floundering is that Barry the ID proponent has a firmer grasp on Darwinian theory than Sev, the proponent of evolutionary theory. Wow, in your worldview, isn't that supposed to be impossible? Barry Arrington

Origenes @ 21

Sev, given Darwinism, Oog’s mind is a incoherent mix of misguided beliefs with survival value. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that a free rational mind results from all this, but that is exactly what is assumed in your question

By the time of the "caveman" the human brain was already an incredibly complex organ, probably little different from our own in terms of the capacity for consciousness and basic intelligence. We still have no idea of how and why it got to that point but if there was no designer involved then the only apparent alternative is natural processes. And even if you propose some alien intelligence as being responsible for intelligent life on Earth, my next question will always be "Okay, but where did this Intelligent Designer come from or is it designing turtles all the way down?"

Contrary to your assumption, Oog, under Darwinism, has no free rational choice between several responses to a tiger. Instead Oog is a biological automaton and natural selection has reduced Oog’s palette of responses to one single blind response with survival value.

I doubt that Oog was any more of a biological automaton than we are. As I wrote above, he probably was capable of the same basic intelligence as we are. How that came about is still unknown. We can't deny that what we experience consciously feels like free will and independent, rational thought. What we also cannot deny is that we are creatures of our history. To some extent, what we are is both inherited from our parents and shaped by environmental influences long before we were aware that we were subject to them. So, what in fact do we mean by 'free will'? Is it something we either have or don't have or is it a question of how much or how little? Seversky

Barry Arrington @ 20

Of course you can change the assumptions of the example such that correspondence of mental impressions with reality increases fitness. But that does your argument no good. Your argument is that correspondence necessarily always increases fitness and therefore natural selection always selects for correspondence

In the long term, yes. But as I think we have agreed, a false belief can also enhance the chances for survival, at least in the short term. The problem with a false belief is that there is a greater chance that it will come into conflict with reality at some point so eventually selection should favor true beliefs.

But don’t take my word for it. Darwinsists Ajit Varki and Danny Brower absolutely insist that natural selection sometimes favors false thinking. They say that the modern human mind evolved when early humans overcame their awareness of mortality by acquiring “a massive capacity for denial.” Varki and Brower argue that all non-humans are aware of their own mortality and thus are inhibited from embarking on enterprises—such as scientific discoveries and technological innovations—that transcend the life of a single individual. By evolving a capacity for denying mortality, subhuman creatures became humans and modern culture emerged. But “reality denial” quickly extended to other aspects of reality and produced religion. This is outlined in Wells’ book.

Thank you for citing Varki and Brower's work. I hadn't heard of it before. It sounds like an intriguing conjecture although, as I understand it, even they admit it is most probably untestable. Which makes it interesting that you would even refer to it given that sort of untestable speculation is usually dismissed as just another Darwinian just-so story here on UD. Seversky

The most significant thing is, surely, that KLM has become so tone-deaf to its passenger base that their creative team never considered that people take seatbelt safety seriously and literally. Showing us all something that won't work in real life as a demonstration of their commitment to diversity or whatever it is they are committed to (this ad isn't at all promising) should put them in the running for the worst PR blunder of the year, international class. News

--But I like the ad: it’s friendly and kind.-- And doesn't make a bit of sense. tribune7

As the following quote illustrates how modern 20th century man abandoned the idea of truth and replaced it with power.

Before his untimely death in November 1963, C. S. Lewis intended to write the story of a fictional character named Ezekiel Bulver, a boy who learned by listening carefully to his parents quarrel that “refutation is no necessary part of argument.” Bulver’s unique insight was that he could avoid the rigorous demands of intellectual life by simply asserting that his opponent was wrong and then following that assertion with an ad hominem attack as supporting evidence. That, Lewis tells us, was “how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century.” Refutation requires engagement with ideas, and a striving to understand the truth. From it arise norms of civility, good faith among interlocutors, and a willingness to consider the merits of different arguments. It is easier to denounce without disputation, to assume someone is wrong without bothering to discover whether they are wrong or demonstrating how they are wrong.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/451391/scott-yenor-political-state-boise-state-university-sex-gender-culture-wars Of course that trend has carried over into the 21st century. Tragically it has continued to gain momentum john_a_designer

JAD & TWSYF, actually, the Op shows that conjuring tricks with words, even by courts and parliaments or publics manipulated to vote for absurdity under false colour of law cannot change reality. They can only collide with it. Lemming marches off cliffs are fatal, regardless of whatever clever tricks are used to induce such a march of folly. And yes, our apostate and willfully en-darkened civilisation is patently in a suicidal hysteria driven by clinging to absurdities. KF kairosfocus

JAD @ 22: Well said, as usual. Your following statement deserves repeating: "Of course, a little beneath the surface of this so-called tolerance was a contempt for people who still believed in traditional values." Leftists seethe with contempt and hate for anybody who disagrees with them, especially when it comes to the homosexual agenda. They are the true haters. Truth Will Set You Free

Pindi @ 15,

JAD, are marriages between a man and woman who can’t conceive also absurd?

Procreation in the only natural law basis for marriage. To base it on anything else is not only absurd but also a perversion of what marriage has traditionally and historically intended to be. That’s what the secular progressive left has succeeded in doing-- perverting marriage by redefining it and then politically weaponing it to undermine traditional marriage and persecute people of faith who support it. I grew up in the 1960’s (graduated from high school in 1969.) The view of the secular progressive left at the time was that traditional institutions like marriage and the family were obsolete and totally superfluous and that everyone should tolerate “free love.” Of course, a little beneath the surface of this so-called tolerance was a contempt for people who still believed in traditional values. So why has the agenda changed? Why is the left now in favor of marriage? It isn’t. It still is motivated by the same contempt. The purpose of SSM is to undermine traditional values and beliefs by subverting them. Anyone who knows a little bit of history knows that’s the truth. But then, truth is another thing that secular progressives have a problem with. john_a_designer

Seversky: In Oog’s case, running away from tigers as a game certainly helps keep him alive as long as that’s all he does. But suppose one day he gets tired of running away and decides to go and have a friendly wrestle with the tiger instead.

Sev, given Darwinism, Oog's mind is a incoherent mix of misguided beliefs with survival value. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that a free rational mind results from all this, but that is exactly what is assumed in your question. Contrary to your assumption, Oog, under Darwinism, has no free rational choice between several responses to a tiger. Instead Oog is a biological automaton and natural selection has reduced Oog's palette of responses to one single blind response with survival value. Origenes

Sev, Of course you can change the assumptions of the example such that correspondence of mental impressions with reality increases fitness. But that does your argument no good. Your argument is that correspondence necessarily always increases fitness and therefore natural selection always selects for correspondence. But that is not what Darwinism states (BTW, pretending that you don’t know what that word means is unseemly and disingenuous. I can’t imagine why you don’t understand that puts you in a bad light). As my example shows, correspondence is only incidentally related to survival. But don’t take my word for it. Darwinsists Ajit Varki and Danny Brower absolutely insist that natural selection sometimes favors false thinking. They say that the modern human mind evolved when early humans overcame their awareness of mortality by acquiring “a massive capacity for denial.” Varki and Brower argue that all non-humans are aware of their own mortality and thus are inhibited from embarking on enterprises—such as scientific discoveries and technological innovations—that transcend the life of a single individual. By evolving a capacity for denying mortality, subhuman creatures became humans and modern culture emerged. But “reality denial” quickly extended to other aspects of reality and produced religion. This is outlined in Wells’ book. Sev, if you are going to exposit Darwinism, you really should keep up with the theory as exposited by its prominent exponents and not try to pawn off your own idiosyncratic version in these pages. Barry Arrington

Barry Arrington @ 16

The reference in the title of the OP is in the context of the way things really are, not Darwinism. So, no, I do not agree. Under Darwinism you can be completely wrong and still survive and the fact of your survival means your are the fittest in spite of the fact that you were wrong.

If by "Darwinism" you mean natural selection then that is the way things really are, although it's not all of the way things are and it doesn't tell us how things originally became the way they are. And we can certainly imagine scenarios in which false beliefs are not immediately dangerous to the holder. But eventually? Consider those indigenous peoples whose religion led them to believe they would be immune to the bullets fired from the guns of the white man. How well did that work out for them?

Example: Oog the caveman thinks Saber Toothed tigers are fun to play with. But he also thinks the best way to play with tigers is to run and hide. Both ideas are contrary to reality. But in combination they result in his survival. Oog is fit under Darwinism’s definition of fit.

Fitness is a relative term. You don't need to be fit in any absolute sense, just a bit fitter than the competition. In Oog's case, running away from tigers as a game certainly helps keep him alive as long as that's all he does. But suppose one day he gets tired of running away and decides to go and have a friendly wrestle with the tiger instead. There's a pretty good chance that's the last misguided decision he would ever make. Oog's cousin Moog, on the other hand, runs away from tigers because he's seen them hunt and kill other animals and figured out that tigers actually see him as a meal rather than a playmate. He will also survive like Oog but he has a better chance of surviving for longer because he would never make Oog's Mistake. That means he would have a better chance of having progeny that inherit at least the basis of his truth-tracking behavior. And if that works for Moog, it will work for others like him. Thus, over time, truth-tracking behavior will gradually be favored by natural selection. Seversky

Oog? Barry, I just couldn't think what the name of that new chief engineer of seatbelt safety is, which KLM patronizes, but yes, it's Oog. Personally, I am flying Air Canada or the bus. ;) News

Sev @ 13:

Can we assume from this that you agree with me that the argument that our minds were shaped for survival but not for truth is a false dichotomy?

The reference in the title of the OP is in the context of the way things really are, not Darwinism. So, no, I do not agree. Under Darwinism you can be completely wrong and still survive and the mere fact of your survival means you are are the fittest in spite of the fact that you were wrong. Example: Oog the caveman thinks Saber Toothed tigers are fun to play with. But he also thinks the best way to play with tigers is to run and hide. Both ideas are contrary to reality. But in combination they result in his survival. Oog is fit under Darwinism's definition of fit. Barry Arrington

JAD, are marriages between a man and woman who can't conceive also absurd? Pindi

lol I wonder if clicking up with someone else on their flights is encouraged. Mung

Reality is the wall you smack into when you are wrong, as KLM inadvertently demonstrates in this tweet.

Can we assume from this that you agree with me that the argument that our minds were shaped for survival but not for truth is a false dichotomy? In other words, if we form false beliefs about reality then, sooner or later, we will run smack into it so natural selection will favor the formation of true beliefs? Seversky

None of your suggestions would be permitted by KLM for the simple reason that they would not be safe for the passenger.

To be fair, he did mention extensions, which are used quite frequently for people of excessive girth. Mark Hammersla

LT:

the current design could be made to work in multiple combinations with some additions and creativity.

That is, of course, false. None of your suggestions would be permitted by KLM for the simple reason that they would not be safe for the passenger. It is amusing to watch reality drive the likes of LT nuts. Barry Arrington

I'm beginning to think that we are not really talking about seat belts. :) Mark Hammersla

"Push back" is your characterization. My characterization is that I expanded on your point that "Only one of the three combinations allows the seat belt to function to protect the passenger," by noting that the current design could be made to work in multiple combinations with some additions and creativity. Some designs work as-is, some function just fine with slight modification. For instance, have you ever seen those little extensions that allow a shirt collar to be attached yet widened? I love complementary design and wouldn't dream of ignoring it. It's fascinating how non-complementary designs work just fine also. LarTanner

To the extent that the KLM PR team is post-modern, they might not think that anyone cares whether the devices actually work. Fact is a form of oppression; narrative is liberating. LarTanner writes at 1: "The straps themselves could be intertwined and knotted. Heck, maybe the belt from the neighboring seat could be brought over. Could be fun." Unless, of course, one actually needs a seatbelt rather than a badly dislocated shoulder or a broken neck. Post-modernism is a war on reality. See also: Question for multiverse theorists: To what can science appeal, if not evidence? News

LT

Oh, I am not pushing back on your conclusion.

Of course you are. That was the whole purpose of your post. Your denial of the obvious fact is bizarre.

I honestly don’t care.

Then why did you push back?

But I like the ad: it’s friendly and kind.

I like the ad too. It illustrates beautifully the absurdity of ignoring complementary design. Barry Arrington

"One wonders why you would push back at it." Oh, I am not pushing back on your conclusion. I honestly don't care. But I like the ad: it's friendly and kind. LarTanner

Hi, Engineering. Meet Post-Modernism. Our new boss. News

The ad (unintentionally, no doubt) illustrates the absurdity of "same sex marriage": Two women can’t make a baby. Two men can’t make a baby. Only a man and a woman can. But as we all know, it’s “politically incorrect” to point out the obvious. john_a_designer

The rainbow colors make everything all better, even if they don't help the seat belt work. Unbuckled, but PC. Andrew asauber

LT:

The designers are clever, though. They could create another mechanism to facilitate buckle-to-buckle and latchplate-to-latchplate connections. No less effective.

So if the design were different things might be different. Can’t argue with that. But we are not talking about a different design are we. We are talking about the design we have – the one pictured in the tweet. So the logical relevance of your comment is nil.

The straps themselves could be intertwined and knotted. Heck, maybe the belt from the neighboring seat could be brought over. Could be fun.

Are either of those uses optimal? Would KLM permit either? Thanks for making my point.

The reality is that smart designers understand that “there’s more than one way to skin a cat,” as the saying goes.

Yes, smart designers can use different methods. No one disputes that. But, again, we are not talking about what the designer of the seatbelt could have done. We are talking about what he did. And when a designer has chosen a particular design that includes an obviously complementary fitting together of parts, it is unwise (and in this instance unsafe) to ignore the design. This conclusion is glaringly obvious. One wonders why you would push back at it. Barry Arrington

A seat belt buckle is designed to be complementary with the latchplate.

The designers are clever, though. They could create another mechanism to facilitate buckle-to-buckle and latchplate-to-latchplate connections. No less effective. The straps themselves could be intertwined and knotted. Heck, maybe the belt from the neighboring seat could be brought over. Could be fun. The reality is that smart designers understand that "there's more than one way to skin a cat," as the saying goes. LarTanner