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

_{Barry Arrington

September 15, 2017

Intelligent Design}

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

Reality is the wall you smack into when you are wrong, as KLM inadvertently demonstrates in this tweet. The three combinations are not equal. It does matter which I try to click with. Only one of the three combinations allows the seat belt to function to protect the passenger. If there were a crash, the result of the first two combinations would be “splat.” Here is some nice irony: I am 100% certain that if I boarded a KLM flight and attempted to use either of the first two combinations, they would insist that I revert to the third.

A seat belt buckle is designed to be complementary with the latchplate. One ignores that obviously complementary design at one’s peril.

Comments

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_{September 17, 2017
September
09
Sep
17
17
2017
09:32 PM
9
09
32
PM
PDT}

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_{September 17, 2017
September
09
Sep
17
17
2017
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PDT}

That you can't figure out where I'm going with this or that a father should marry his son?tribune7_{September 17, 2017
September
09
Sep
17
17
2017
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT}

tribune7, My answer is no. [A father and son should not be allowed to marry]daveS_{September 17, 2017
September
09
Sep
17
17
2017
08:43 PM
8
08
43
PM
PDT}

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_{September 17, 2017
September
09
Sep
17
17
2017
08:40 PM
8
08
40
PM
PDT}

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_{September 17, 2017
September
09
Sep
17
17
2017
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT}

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_{September 17, 2017
September
09
Sep
17
17
2017
08:34 PM
8
08
34
PM
PDT}

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_{September 17, 2017
September
09
Sep
17
17
2017
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT}

tribune7, I will gladly answer your question, but please answer mine first. :)daveS_{September 17, 2017
September
09
Sep
17
17
2017
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT}

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_{September 17, 2017
September
09
Sep
17
17
2017
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT}

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_{September 17, 2017
September
09
Sep
17
17
2017
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT}

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_{September 17, 2017
September
09
Sep
17
17
2017
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT}

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_{September 17, 2017
September
09
Sep
17
17
2017
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT}

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. KFkairosfocus_{September 17, 2017
September
09
Sep
17
17
2017
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT}

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_{September 17, 2017
September
09
Sep
17
17
2017
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT}

KF, yup and my simple questions remain under answered by P.tribune7_{September 17, 2017
September
09
Sep
17
17
2017
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT}

PPPS: Materialism vivisection: http://www.scifiwright.com/on-materialism/kairosfocus_{September 17, 2017
September
09
Sep
17
17
2017
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT}

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_{September 17, 2017
September
09
Sep
17
17
2017
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT}

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_{September 17, 2017
September
09
Sep
17
17
2017
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT}

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_{September 17, 2017
September
09
Sep
17
17
2017
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

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_{September 17, 2017
September
09
Sep
17
17
2017
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT}

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_{September 17, 2017
September
09
Sep
17
17
2017
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT}

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_{September 17, 2017
September
09
Sep
17
17
2017
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT}

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_{September 17, 2017
September
09
Sep
17
17
2017
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT}

Pindi- Marriage was defined as a union between a man and a woman. Someone changed the definition to suit their needs.ET_{September 17, 2017
September
09
Sep
17
17
2017
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT}

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_{September 17, 2017
September
09
Sep
17
17
2017
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT}

tribune7: huh? Are you comparing a couple who can't procreate with a father marrying his son?Pindi_{September 17, 2017
September
09
Sep
17
17
2017
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT}

Pindi, what do you think the purpose of civil marriage is? Should a father be allowed to marry his son?tribune7_{September 17, 2017
September
09
Sep
17
17
2017
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

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_{September 17, 2017
September
09
Sep
17
17
2017
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT}

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_{September 17, 2017
September
09
Sep
17
17
2017
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply