Culture Darwinism Intelligent Design

Terror of Existence: Cannibal Jeffrey Dahmer loved, then loathed, Darwinism

Spread the love

The Terror of Existence: From Ecclesiastes to Theatre of the Absurd Last Sunday we noted a new book by psychiatrist Theodore Dalrymple, and writer Ken Francis, The Terror of Existence: From Ecclesiastes to Theatre of the Absurd. They tackle the same topics in twin essays, as a Christian and an agnostic. Francis kindly sends us an excerpt from one of his essays featuring Jeffrey Dahmer (1960-1994), murderer and cannibal:

One of the worst terrors of existence is the fear of being murdered or badly tortured. We read endless stories of homicide, both fact and fictional, and the ones that spook us most are those carried out by the psychopath. The Moors Murders in the UK during the 1960s were perhaps the most disturbing story of the slaying of innocent children by a couple of deranged ‘lovers’(more like partners in murder), Ian Brady and Myra Hindley, but the story of serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer (1960-1994), is not for the fainthearted. Dahmer was a sex killer who not only murdered his 17 victims, but also dismembered their corpses and cannibalised some of them. Before being killed in prison by a fellow inmate, during an MSNBC interview in 1994, Dahmer claimed that Darwinian unguided evolution, which was taught in school, made him believe humans were insignificant animals.

Thanking his father who was present during the interview, Dahmer thanked his dad for sending him scientific material on theism. He said: ‘I always believed the lie that evolution is truth, the theory of evolution is truth, that we all just came from the slime, and when we died, you know, that was it, there was nothing – so the whole theory cheapens life. I started reading books that show how evolution is just a complete lie. There’s no basis in science to uphold it. And I’ve since come to believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is the true Creator of the heavens and the earth, that it didn’t just happen. I’ve accepted him as my Lord and Saviour, and I believe that I, as well as everyone else will be accountable to him. . . . If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point in trying to modify your behaviour to keep it in acceptable ranges?’[1]

[1] ‘Remember serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer? Darwinism played a role in his crimes too’, Uncommon Descent website, June 28, 2012.

One thinks of the role Darwinism played as a motivator in the Columbine murders as well. As a theory in science, it seems uniquely able to captivate violent people.

Has anyone ever founded a children’s hospital or an old age home for the poor on behalf of Darwinism?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

See also: Remember serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer? Darwinism played a role in his crimes too. Many may remember serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer (1960-1994), who killed and mutilated at least 17 men and boys and was killed in prison by a fellow inmate. Less well known is the struggle he had (or claims to have had) over the issue of unguided evolution, whose most popular form is Darwinism. (2012)

and

Theodore Dalrymple and Ken Francis on the terror of a materialist atheist’s existence

17 Replies to “Terror of Existence: Cannibal Jeffrey Dahmer loved, then loathed, Darwinism

  1. 1
    EricMH says:

    The whole point of Darwin’s theory is that Christian society’s support for the handicapped and weak is bad. It is a sophisticated attempt to discredit Christian Victorian morality (and justify slavery). It’s purely rationalized selfishness.

    However, it seems like it takes a much stronger society to take care of the weak than to discard the weak. Strength is demonstrated by an excess of care. Hard to see bullying as a sign of strength.

  2. 2
    Seversky says:

    in 1994, Dahmer claimed that Darwinian unguided evolution, which was taught in school, made him believe humans were insignificant animals.

    Was Dahmer a psychopath before he learned about evolution in school or is the claim that the theory turned him into one? If it is being claimed that studying evolution turns people into psychopathic killers then we should see a much higher incidence of such behavior amongst evolutionary biologists. Is that is what we see in fact?

    On the other hand, if Dahmer was already a psychopath but simply seized on “Darwinism” as a later justification for his murderous tendencies then how is evolution in any way to blame for what he did?

    And we can ask exactly the same questions about the Columbine murders.

    Has anyone ever founded a children’s hospital or an old age home for the poor on behalf of Darwinism?

    You mean something like the Christian-run boarding schools for Native American children?

    No there are no children’s hospitals or old age homes founded for the poor on behalf of Darwinism or Newtonian mechanics or relativity theory or quantum mechanics. It’s a silly question. Those theories are about science not about human morality or ethics.

    As for:

    If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point in trying to modify your behaviour to keep it in acceptable ranges?

    Are Christians saying that they only do what their Lord tells them is good, not because it is the right thing to do, but because they will be made to suffer if they don’t? In other words, they would have no way of knowing what is right or wrong unless their God told them?

    On the other hand, if this life is the only one we have or ever will have then doesn’t the fact that it is unique mean it should be treasured and preserved for as long as is possible above all things? Far from simply throwing it away as worthless, shouldn’t we be making the best of it while we have it?

  3. 3
    Seversky says:

    EricMH @ 1

    The whole point of Darwin’s theory is that Christian society’s support for the handicapped and weak is bad. It is a sophisticated attempt to discredit Christian Victorian morality (and justify slavery). It’s purely rationalized selfishness.

    No, it was not the whole point of Darwin’s theory.

    Yes, as we all know, he wrote in Descent

    With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

    But then we also know that he wrote subsequently:

    The aid we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature.

    Do you think Darwin was unaware that his theory was descriptive rather than prescriptive?

  4. 4
    EricMH says:

    @Seversky, Description becomes prescription.

  5. 5
    goodusername says:

    @Seversky, Description becomes prescription.

    In that case according to gravity you should knock your computer to the ground.

  6. 6
    EricMH says:

    @goodusername, which is a good indication that something more than gravity is at work in our world. Same with Darwinism. Since we do not logically follow through with his description that means his description is at least significantly incomplete. This was pointed out by the atheist David Stove in his entertaining and lucid book Darwinian Fairytales.

  7. 7
    EDTA says:

    Seversky,

    >…if this life is the only one we have or ever will have then doesn’t the fact that it is unique mean it should be treasured and preserved for as long as is possible above all things?

    Different people seem to take this to different logical conclusions. Some take materialism to imply life is important, which mostly works itself out as being as selfish as possible–while not totally destroying the society around them–since that would ruin the fun. AKA hedonism.

    Others seem to take it to mean that _other_ people’s lives are essentially worthless, as Dahmer did.

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky states:

    Was Dahmer a psychopath before he learned about evolution in school or is the claim that the theory turned him into one? If it is being claimed that studying evolution turns people into psychopathic killers then we should see a much higher incidence of such behavior amongst evolutionary biologists. Is that is what we see in fact?

    And yet, contrary to Seversky’s belief that atheists are no more psychopathic than the majority of people who do believe in God, there are actually studies that show that people who do not believe in a God and/or a soul are more anti-social (psychopathic) than people who do believe in a soul:

    Anthony Jack, Why Don’t Psychopaths Believe in Dualism? – video (14:22 minute mark)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?l.....zOk#t=862s

    A scientific case for conceptual dualism: The problem of consciousness and the opposing domains hypothesis. – Anthony I. Jack – 2013
    Excerpt page 18: we predicted that psychopaths would not be able to perceive the problem of consciousness.,,
    In a series of five experiments (Jack, in preparation), we found a highly replicable and robust negative correlation (r~-0.34) between belief in dualism and the primary psychopathic trait of callous affect7.
    Page 24: Clearly these findings fit well with the hypothesis (Robbins and Jack, 2006) that psychopaths can’t see the problem of consciousness8. Taking these finding together with other work on dehumanization and the anti-social effects of denying the soul and free will, they present a powerful picture. When we see persons, that is, when we see others as fellow humans, then our percept is of something essentially non-physical nature. This feature of our psychology appears to be relevant to a number of other philosophical issues, including the tension between utilitarian principles and deontological concerns about harming persons (Jack et al., accepted), the question of whether God exists (Jack et al., under review-b), and the problem of free will9.
    http://tonyjack.org/files/2013.....281%29.pdf

    Moreover, although atheists like to claim that they are just as moral as Christians, the fact of the matter is that, when the rubber meets the road to actually helping people in need, atheists by and large could care less for their fellow man:

    Atheist Myth: “No One Has Ever Killed in the Name of Atheism” – Nov. 2016
    Excerpt” “where are the army of atheists humanitarian traipsing about Africa and Asia giving hope to the poor and disadvantaged? Certainly none of the famous atheist polemicists have ever done so. Christopher Hitchens was asked on multiply occasions if he or other atheists who similarly had a poor opinion of St. Mother Teresa have actually gone to India and rolled up their sleeves to bathe lepers. I’ve asked many atheists including P.Z. Myers, Patricia Churchland and Christopher Hitchens and none have responded in the positive. Madalyn O’Hair never mentioned having done so. Mao and Stalin were busy killing tens of millions of their compatriots by engineering famines in their respective countries so it’s hard to imagine they also helped poor people. When I volunteered at Mother Teresa’s street clinics in Calcutta, I never met an atheist doing the same work but I routinely met Catholics doing so.”
    http://www.ncregister.com/blog.....of-atheism

    In fact, atheism and/or Darwinism lay at the root of the greatest slaughters of mankind:

    Among the Disbelievers:
    Why atheism was central to the great evil of the 20th century
    – GARY SAUL MORSON / SEPT. 17, 2018
    Excerpt: In its 300-year history in Spain, Portugal, and the New World, the Spanish Inquisition killed a few thousand, perhaps even a few tens of thousands, while in the atheist Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin, that was the average toll every week or two. To this objection, the atheist has a ready reply: Atheism had nothing to do with Bolshevik carnage. As Richard Dawkins explains in The God Delusion: “What matters is not whether Hitler and Stalin were atheists, but whether atheism systematically influences people to do bad things. There is not the smallest evidence that it does.” This comment displays an ignorance so astonishing that, as the Russian expression goes, one can only stare and spit.,,,
    Bolshevik ideology demanded that religion be wiped out. Perhaps even more than constructing dams and factories, creating a population of atheists became the regime’s most important criterion of success. “Atheism [was] the new civilization’s calling card,” as S.A. Kuchinsky, director of the Leningrad State Museum of the History of Religion and Atheism, explained.
    Communist society could be built only by a new kind of human being, one who would at every moment be guided by partiinost (party-mindedness), a singular devotion to the Party’s purposes. Partiinost demanded militant atheism (mere unbelief was not enough), and atheism became, as Smolkin observes, “the battleground on which Soviet Communism engaged with the existential concerns at the heart of human existence: the meaning of life and death.”
    https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/among-the-disbelievers/

    Who Killed More: Hitler, Stalin, or Mao?
    Ian Johnson – February 5, 2018
    Excerpt: In these pages nearly seven years ago, Timothy Snyder asked the provocative question: Who killed more, Hitler or Stalin? As useful as that exercise in moral rigor was, some think the question itself might have been slightly off. Instead, it should have included a third tyrant of the twentieth century, Chairman Mao. And not just that, but that Mao should have been the hands-down winner, with his ledger easily trumping the European dictators’.
    https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/02/05/who-killed-more-hitler-stalin-or-mao/

    Seversky then claims:

    No there are no children’s hospitals or old age homes founded for the poor on behalf of Darwinism or Newtonian mechanics or relativity theory or quantum mechanics. It’s a silly question. Those theories are about science not about human morality or ethics.

    Don’t confuse the pseudoscientific myth of Darwinian evolution with the testable and falsifiable sciences of Newtonian mechanics, relativity theory and quantum mechanics:

    Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rzw0JkuKuQ

    Moreover, unlike Darwin who sought to undermine belief in God, Newton considered his work to be, pretty much, a powerful apologetic for the existence of God:

    “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems: and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he hath placed those systems at immense distances one from another. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God pantokrator, or Universal Ruler;,,, The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect;,,, from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity or infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures for ever, and is every where present”:
    Sir Isaac Newton – Quoted from what many consider the greatest science masterpiece of all time, his book “Principia”

    Moreover, if anything is incompatible with the reductive materialistic foundation that undergirds Darwinian thought it is quantum theory.

    Shoot, quantum theory even gives us powerful physical evidence for a transcendent soul that is capable of living past the death of our material bodies.

    Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – video
    https://youtu.be/LHdD2Am1g5Y

    In the following video, entitled Quantum Entangled Consciousness, Stuart Hameroff states that ‘it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul’.

    “Let’s say the heart stops beating. The blood stops flowing. The microtubules lose their quantum state. But the quantum information, which is in the microtubules, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed. It just distributes and dissipates to the universe at large. If a patient is resuscitated, revived, this quantum information can go back into the microtubules and the patient says, “I had a near death experience. I saw a white light. I saw a tunnel. I saw my dead relatives.,,” Now if they’re not revived and the patient dies, then it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”
    – Stuart Hameroff – Quantum Entangled Consciousness – Life After Death – video (5:00 minute mark)
    https://youtu.be/jjpEc98o_Oo?t=300

    Moreover, both special and general relativity confirm Christian presuppositions about the structure of the universe. Namely of there being a higher heavenly dimension, as well as a hellish dimension, that exist in a higher dimension above and below this temporal realm that we currently live in:

    Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, General Relativity and Christianity – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4QDy1Soolo

    Thus for Seversky to try to lump his pseudoscientific atheistic religion of Darwinian evolution with the rigid sciences of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity, which both strongly support Christian presuppositions, is simply an insult to the Christian founders of modern science as well as being completely disingenuous to what the science actually says.

  9. 9
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky then states:

    On the other hand, if this life is the only one we have or ever will have then doesn’t the fact that it is unique mean it should be treasured and preserved for as long as is possible above all things? Far from simply throwing it away as worthless, shouldn’t we be making the best of it while we have it?

    Seversky is trying very hard to ignore the Nihilistic elephant in the room by ‘inventing meaning’ for his life.

    The fact of the matter is that if atheism is true then life is absurd and meaningless. Nothing we do really matters. Life, despite of ‘special’ we may want to imagine it to be, is simply pointless.

    As the bible itself says in many paces, Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die. i.e. take your mind off your impending nonexistence.

    Isaiah 22:13; Proverbs 23:35; Luke 12:19; 1 Corinthians 15:32
    https://www.esv.org/Isaiah+22:13;Proverbs+23:35;Luke+12:19;1+Corinthians+15:32/

    The Absurdity of Life without God – William Lane Craig
    Excerpt: Meaning of Life
    Without God, there can be no objective meaning in life. Sartre’s program is actually an exercise in self-delusion. Sartre is really saying, “Let’s pretend the universe has meaning.” And this is just fooling ourselves.
    The point is this: if God does not exist, then life is objectively meaningless; but man cannot live consistently and happily knowing that life is meaningless; so in order to be happy he pretends life has meaning. But this is, of course, entirely inconsistent—for without God, man and the universe are without any real significance.
    https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-nature-of-god/the-absurdity-of-life-without-god/

    And indeed, the hopeless nihilism inherent within atheism takes a fairly significant toll on the atheist’s physical and mental health.

    As Professor Andrew Sims, former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, states, “The advantageous effect of religious belief and spirituality on mental and physical health is one of the best-kept secrets in psychiatry and medicine generally.”,,, “In the majority of studies, religious involvement is correlated with well-being, happiness and life satisfaction; hope and optimism; purpose and meaning in life;,,”

    “I maintain that whatever else faith may be, it cannot be a delusion.
    The advantageous effect of religious belief and spirituality on mental and physical health is one of the best-kept secrets in psychiatry and medicine generally. If the findings of the huge volume of research on this topic had gone in the opposite direction and it had been found that religion damages your mental health, it would have been front-page news in every newspaper in the land.”
    – Professor Andrew Sims former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists – Is Faith Delusion?: Why religion is good for your health – preface
    “In the majority of studies, religious involvement is correlated with well-being, happiness and life satisfaction; hope and optimism; purpose and meaning in life; higher self-esteem; better adaptation to bereavement; greater social support and less loneliness; lower rates of depression and faster recovery from depression; lower rates of suicide and fewer positive attitudes towards suicide; less anxiety; less psychosis and fewer psychotic tendencies; lower rates of alcohol and drug use and abuse; less delinquency and criminal activity; greater marital stability and satisfaction… We concluded that for the vast majority of people the apparent benefits of devout belief and practice probably outweigh the risks.”
    – Professor Andrew Sims former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists – Is Faith Delusion?: Why religion is good for your health – page 100
    https://books.google.com/books?id=PREdCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA100#v=onepage&q&f=false

    In fact, in the following study it was found that, “those middle-aged adults who go to church, synagogues, mosques or other houses of worship reduce their mortality risk by 55%.”

    Can attending church really help you live longer? This study says yes – June 1, 2017
    Excerpt: Specifically, the study says those middle-aged adults who go to church, synagogues, mosques or other houses of worship reduce their mortality risk by 55%. The Plos One journal published the “Church Attendance, Allostatic Load and Mortality in Middle Aged Adults” study May 16.
    “For those who did not attend church at all, they were twice as likely to die prematurely than those who did who attended church at some point over the last year,” Bruce said.
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/06/02/can-attending-church-really-help-you-live-longer-study-says-yes/364375001/

    Study: Religiously affiliated people lived “9.45 and 5.64 years longer…”
    July 1, 2018
    Excerpt: Self-reported religious service attendance has been linked with longevity. However, previous work has largely relied on self-report data and volunteer samples. Here, mention of a religious affiliation in obituaries was analyzed as an alternative measure of religiosity. In two samples (N = 505 from Des Moines, IA, and N = 1,096 from 42 U.S. cities), the religiously affiliated lived 9.45 and 5.64 years longer, respectively, than the nonreligiously affiliated. Additionally, social integration and volunteerism partially mediated the religion–longevity relation.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/study-religiously-affiliated-people-lived-religiously-affiliated-lived-9-45-and-5-64-years-longer/

    Can Religion Extend Your Life? – By Chuck Dinerstein — June 16, 2018
    Excerpt: The researcher’s regression analysis suggested that the effect of volunteering and participation accounted for 20% or 1 year of the impact, while religious affiliation accounted for the remaining four years or 80%.
    https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/06/16/can-religion-extend-your-life-13092

    Atheism and health
    A meta-analysis of all studies, both published and unpublished, relating to religious involvement and longevity was carried out in 2000. Forty-two studies were included, involving some 126,000 subjects. Active religious involvement increased the chance of living longer by some 29%, and participation in public religious practices, such as church attendance, increased the chance of living longer by 43%.[4][5]
    http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_health

    Thus, it is readily apparent that the Atheist’s attempt to create illusory meaning and purposes for his life, minus belief in God and a afterlife, falls short in a rather dramatic fashion on both the mental and physical level.

    Moreover, there are many lines of scientific evidence from modern science that can be brought forth that show that our lives are indeed objectively meaningful and that God, besides existing, really does care for each of us individually:

    Atheistic Materialism vs Meaning, Value, and Purpose in Our Lives – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqUxBSbFhog

    Thus Seversky, although he will never admit to the truth, has once again completely missed the boat with his post.

    Shoot, he has completely missed the the greatest gift that any man can possibly receive. Namely eternal life with God.

    Verse

    1 Corinthians 2:9
    But just as it is written, “Things that no eye has seen, or ear heard, or mind imagined, are the things God has prepared for those who love him.”

  10. 10
  11. 11
    Bob O'H says:

    @goodusername, which is a good indication that something more than gravity is at work in our world.

    Yes, electromagnatism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces.

    Oh, and stupidity.

  12. 12
    bornagain77 says:

    The primary, overriding, claim of atheism is that there is no objective meaning or purpose behind the universe in general or behind our own individual lives in particular.

    For one example out on many, Dawkins claims that we live in a universe of ‘pitiless indifference’:

    “The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.
    ? Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life

    Thus for Seversky to claim, on the one hand, that atheism is true and that therefore there is no objective meaning or purpose behind the universe in general or behind our own individual lives in particular, and yet on the other hand, as he did at the end of post 2, claim that our lives are not ‘worthless’, is, in fact, as Dr. Craig points out, an exercise in self delusion.

    The Absurdity of Life without God – William Lane Craig
    Excerpt: Meaning of Life
    Without God, there can be no objective meaning in life. Sartre’s program is actually an exercise in self-delusion. Sartre is really saying, “Let’s pretend the universe has meaning.” And this is just fooling ourselves.
    The point is this: if God does not exist, then life is objectively meaningless; but man cannot live consistently and happily knowing that life is meaningless; so in order to be happy he pretends life has meaning. But this is, of course, entirely inconsistent—for without God, man and the universe are without any real significance.
    https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-nature-of-god/the-absurdity-of-life-without-god/

    Thus, Seversky’s claim that atheism is true and yet that our lives can still be meaningful is a direct contradiction in logic that can only be tolerated by a large dose of self delusion on the atheist’s part.

    Moreover, as you can see from the preceding quote that I referenced from Dawkins, Dawkins based his claim that our lives are meaningless and that we live in a universe of ‘pitiless indifference’ on the ‘argument from evil’.

    This argument from evil that atheists use to try to argue that the universe, and our live, are meaningless, is far from uncommon.

    In fact, Atheists are heavily reliant on the argument from evil.

    Darwin used the argument from evil in the ‘Origin of Species’,,,

    Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin’s Use of Theology in the Origin of Species – May 2011
    Excerpt: The Origin supplies abundant evidence of theology in action; as Dilley observes:
    I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation):,,,
    9. A ‘distant’ God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering.
    10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....46391.html

    And even today the knee jerk reaction of many supposedly intellectual atheists, that we live in a ‘seemingly meaningless world’, is not based on any scientific evidence but is based upon the, theologically based, argument from evil.

    Atheists’ reasons for not believing in God are not scientific
    Excerpt: What I found was 50 elite scientists expressing their personal opinions, but none had some powerful argument or evidence to justify their opinions. In fact, most did not even cite a reason for thinking atheism was true….
    The few that did try to justify their atheism commonly appealed to God of the Gaps arguments (there is no need for God, therefore God does not exist) and the Argument from Evil (our bad world could not have come from an All Loving, All Powerful God). In other words, it is just as I thought it would be. Yes, most elite scientists and scholars are atheists. But their reasons for being atheists and agnostics are varied and often personal. And their typical arguments are rather common and shallow – god of the gaps and the existence of evil. It would seem clear that their expertise and elite status is simply not a causal factor behind their atheism.
    https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/film-night-with-philip-cunningham-atheists-reasons-for-not-believing-in-god-are-not-scientific-and-more/

    The problem with the argument from evil for atheists is the fact that the argument from evil itself presupposes the existence of objective morality and thus presupposes the existence of God.

    Specifically, in the argument from evil atheists hold that “There exist a large number of horrible forms of evil and suffering for which we can see no greater purpose or compensating good.”

    The Problem of Evil: Still A Strong Argument for Atheism – 2015
    Excerpt:,,, the problem of evil, one of the main arguments against the existence of an all-good and all-knowing God.,,,
    P1. There exist a large number of horrible forms of evil and suffering for which we can see no greater purpose or compensating good.
    P2. If an all-powerful, all-good God existed, then such horrific, apparently purposeless evils would not exist.
    C. Therefore, an all-powerful, all-good God does not exist.
    https://thegodlesstheist.com/2015/10/13/the-problem-of-evil-still-a-strong-argument-for-atheism/

    And yet this is, once again, a self defeating position for the atheist to be in.

    Specifically on the one hand, Atheistic materialists hold that morality is subjective and illusory.

    The moral argument is summed up at the 4:36 minute mark of the video and can be stated as such:
    Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
    Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.
    Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.
    The Moral Argument – drcraigvideos – video
    https://youtu.be/OxiAikEk2vU?t=276

    And yet on the other hand, as David Wood puts it in the following article, “By declaring that suffering is evil, atheists have admitted that there is an objective moral standard by which we distinguish good and evil.”

    Responding to the Argument From Evil: Three Approaches for the Theist – By David Wood
    Excerpt: Interestingly enough, proponents of AE grant this premise in the course of their argument. By declaring that suffering is evil, atheists have admitted that there is an objective moral standard by which we distinguish good and evil. Amazingly, then, even as atheists make their case against the existence of God, they actually help us prove that God exists!,,,
    https://www.namb.net/apologetics/responding-to-the-argument-from-evil-three-approaches-for-the-theist

    Thus the atheist’s main argument that we live in a ‘seemingly meaningless world’, i.e. the argument from evil, actually presupposes the existence of objective morality and therefore presupposes the existence of God and therefore, in the end, actually presupposes that we live in a meaningful world.

    As CS Lewis has noted, ANY argument that tries to argue that the universe is meaningless must necessarily presuppose the existence of meaning in order for the atheist to be able to make his argument in the first place, and therefore ANY argument an atheist may try to use to argue for a meaningless universe is self-refuting in its basic presuppositions.

    Specifically, C S Lewis stated:

    “If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.”
    – C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

    Moreover, besides Christians using the atheist’s own self-refuting argument from evil against the atheist to prove that we do indeed live in a meaningful world, the Christian Theist can, as was mentioned previously, also appeal to numerous lines of scientific evidence to prove that we live in a meaningful world.

    Atheistic Materialism vs Meaning, Value, and Purpose in Our Lives – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqUxBSbFhog

    Perhaps the most direct piece of scientific evidence that each of of our lives have intrinsic meaning and purpose in this universe comes from the fact that life itself is now found to be based, not on matter and energy, or on ‘merely complex chemistry’, as many Darwinian materialists have claimed in the past, but is instead based on immaterial information.

    As Stephen Talbott states in the following article which happens to be entitled “How Biologists Lost Sight Of The Meaning Of Life And Are Now Staring It In The Face”, “A given cell, typically contains more than a billion protein molecules at any one time. ,,, “The human body is formed by trillions of individual cells.,,, And then we hear that all this meaningful activity is, somehow, meaningless or a product of meaninglessness. This, I believe, is the real issue troubling the majority of the American populace when they are asked about their belief in evolution. They see one thing and then are told, more or less directly, that they are really seeing its denial. Yet no one has ever explained to them how you get meaning from meaninglessness — a difficult enough task once you realize that we cannot articulate any knowledge of the world at all except in the language of meaning.,,,”

    HOW BIOLOGISTS LOST SIGHT OF THE MEANING OF LIFE — AND ARE NOW STARING IT IN THE FACE – Stephen L. Talbott – May 2012
    Excerpt: “If you think air traffic controllers have a tough job guiding planes into major airports or across a crowded continental airspace, consider the challenge facing a human cell trying to position its proteins”. A given cell, he notes, may make more than 10,000 different proteins, and typically contains more than a billion protein molecules at any one time. “Somehow a cell must get all its proteins to their correct destinations — and equally important, keep these molecules out of the wrong places”. ,,,
    Further, the billion protein molecules in a cell are virtually all capable of interacting with each other to one degree or another; ,,
    The same sort of question can be asked of cells, for example in the growing embryo,,,,
    “The human body is formed by trillions of individual cells. These cells work together with remarkable precision, first forming an adult organism out of a single fertilized egg, and then keeping the organism alive and functional for decades.,,,
    And then we hear that all this meaningful activity is, somehow, meaningless or a product of meaninglessness. This, I believe, is the real issue troubling the majority of the American populace when they are asked about their belief in evolution. They see one thing and then are told, more or less directly, that they are really seeing its denial. Yet no one has ever explained to them how you get meaning from meaninglessness — a difficult enough task once you realize that we cannot articulate any knowledge of the world at all except in the language of meaning.,,,
    http://www.netfuture.org/2012/May1012_184.html#2

  13. 13
    bornagain77 says:

    In the following article, Talbott goes further and reveals that this overwhelming impression of meaning and purpose that is found in life is closely associated with there being immaterial information in life while an organism is alive.
    Specifically, Talbott states that at the moment of a organism’s death “Code, information, and communication, in their biological sense, will have disappeared from the scientist’s vocabulary.”

    The Unbearable Wholeness of Beings – Stephen L. Talbott – 2010
    Excerpt: Virtually the same collection of molecules exists in the canine cells during the moments immediately before and after death. But after the fateful transition no one will any longer think of genes as being regulated, nor will anyone refer to normal or proper chromosome functioning. No molecules will be said to guide other molecules to specific targets, and no molecules will be carrying signals, which is just as well because there will be no structures recognizing signals. Code, information, and communication, in their biological sense, will have disappeared from the scientist’s vocabulary.
    ,,, the question, rather, is why things don’t fall completely apart — as they do, in fact, at the moment of death. What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer?
    Despite the countless processes going on in the cell, and despite the fact that each process might be expected to “go its own way” according to the myriad factors impinging on it from all directions, the actual result is quite different. Rather than becoming progressively disordered in their mutual relations (as indeed happens after death, when the whole dissolves into separate fragments), the processes hold together in a larger unity.
    http://www.thenewatlantis.com/.....-of-beings

    And yet this immaterial information, that Talbott refers to, that is keeping an organism alive “precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer” also provides empirical evidence for a transcendent soul that is capable of living beyond the death of our temporal, material, bodies.
    These following two videos go over some of that evidence.

    Information is Physical (but not how Rolf Landauer meant) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H35I83y5Uro

    Darwinian Materialism vs Quantum Biology – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHdD2Am1g5Y

    Simply put, quantum information, (which is now found to be pervasive within molecular biology and of which classical information is now found to be a subset), is ‘conserved’. Which means, unlike classical information, that quantum information cannot be destroyed,,,

    Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time – 2011
    Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....tally.html

    Quantum no-deleting theorem
    Excerpt: A stronger version of the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem provide permanence to quantum information. To create a copy one must import the information from some part of the universe and to delete a state one needs to export it to another part of the universe where it will continue to exist.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.....onsequence

    The implication of this is fairly straightforward, as Stuart Hameroff states in the following video, ‘But the quantum information,, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed.,,, it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul’.

    “Let’s say the heart stops beating. The blood stops flowing. The microtubules lose their quantum state. But the quantum information, which is in the microtubules, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed. It just distributes and dissipates to the universe at large. If a patient is resuscitated, revived, this quantum information can go back into the microtubules and the patient says, “I had a near death experience. I saw a white light. I saw a tunnel. I saw my dead relatives.,,” Now if they’re not revived and the patient dies, then it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”
    – Stuart Hameroff – Quantum Entangled Consciousness – Life After Death – video (5:00 minute mark)
    https://youtu.be/jjpEc98o_Oo?t=300

    Thus ‘immaterial quantum information’, that is now found to be pervasive within molecular biology, provides empirical evidence strongly suggesting that each of us do indeed have a immortal soul that is capable of living beyond the death of our temporal, material, bodies.
    And thus also provides empirical evidence strongly supporting the Christian’s claim that each of our lives do indeed have, very deep, intrinsic meaning and purpose.

    Moreover, the atheistic presupposition that the universe and our lives do not have any objective meaning or purpose behind them, by undermining teleology, undermines science itself.

    Teleology and the Mind – Michael Egnor – August 16, 2016
    Excerpt: From the hylemorphic perspective, there is an intimate link between the mind and teleology. The 19th-century philosopher Franz Brentano pointed out that the hallmark of the mind is that it is directed to something other than itself. That is, the mind has intentionality, which is the ability of a mental process to be about something, rather than to just be itself. Physical processes alone (understood without teleology) are not inherently about things. The mind is always about things. Stated another way, physical processes (understood without teleology) have no purpose. Mental processes always have purpose. In fact, purpose (aboutness-intentionality-teleology) is what defines the mind. And we see the same purpose (aboutness-intentionality-teleology) in nature.
    Intentionality is a form of teleology. Both intentionality and teleology are goal-directedness — intentionality is directedness in thought, and teleology is directedness in nature. Mind and teleology are both manifestations of purpose in nature. The mind is, within nature, the same kind of process that directs nature.
    In this sense, eliminative materialism is necessary if a materialist is to maintain a non-teleological Darwinian metaphysical perspective. It is purpose that must be denied in order to deny design in nature. So the mind, as well as teleology, must be denied. Eliminative materialism is just Darwinian metaphysics carried to its logical end and applied to man. If there is no teleology, there is no intentionality, and there is no purpose in nature nor in man’s thoughts.
    The link between intentionality and teleology, and the undeniability of teleology, is even more clear if we consider our inescapable belief that other people have minds. The inference that other people have minds based on their purposeful (intentional-teleological) behavior, which is obviously correct and is essential to living a sane life, can be applied to our understanding of nature as well. Just as we know that other people have purposes (intentionality), we know just as certainly that nature has purposes (teleology). In a sense, intelligent design is the recognition of the same purpose-teleology-intentionality in nature that we recognize in ourselves and others.
    Teleology and intentionality are certainly the inferences to be drawn from the obvious purposeful arrangement of parts in nature, but I (as a loyal Thomist!) believe that teleology and intentionality are manifest in an even more fundamental way in nature. Any goal-directed natural change is teleological, even if purpose and arrangement of parts is not clearly manifest. The behavior of a single electron orbiting a proton is teleological, because the motion of the electron hews to specific ends (according to quantum mechanics). A pencil falling to the floor behaves teleologically (it does not fall up, or burst into flame, etc.). Purposeful arrangement of parts is teleology on an even more sophisticated scale, but teleology exists in even the most basic processes in nature. Physics is no less teleological than biology.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2016/08/teleology_and_t/

    Simply put, without presupposing purpose, and or teleology on a deep fundamental level, modern science simply would never have been possible.

    Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons
    IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21)
    Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics.
    http://www.robkoons.net/media/.....ffd524.pdf

  14. 14
    bornagain77 says:

    In fact, the ‘knee jerk’ reaction of atheists themselves is to see the universe as being purposely designed. i.e. is to presuppose goal directed teleology

    Design Thinking Is Hardwired in the Human Brain. How Come? – October 17, 2012
    Excerpt: “Even Professional Scientists Are Compelled to See Purpose in Nature, Psychologists Find.” The article describes a test by Boston University’s psychology department, in which researchers found that “despite years of scientific training, even professional chemists, geologists, and physicists from major universities such as Harvard, MIT, and Yale cannot escape a deep-seated belief that natural phenomena exist for a purpose” ,,,
    Most interesting, though, are the questions begged by this research. One is whether it is even possible to purge teleology from explanation.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....65381.html

    Richard Dawkins take heed: Even atheists instinctively believe in a creator says study – Mary Papenfuss – June 12, 2015
    Excerpt: Three studies at Boston University found that even among atheists, the “knee jerk” reaction to natural phenomenon is the belief that they’re purposefully designed by some intelligence, according to a report on the research in Cognition entitled the “Divided Mind of a disbeliever.”
    The findings “suggest that there is a deeply rooted natural tendency to view nature as designed,” writes a research team led by Elisa Järnefelt of Newman University. They also provide evidence that, in the researchers’ words, “religious non-belief is cognitively effortful.”
    Researchers attempted to plug into the automatic or “default” human brain by showing subjects images of natural landscapes and things made by human beings, then requiring lightning-fast responses to the question on whether “any being purposefully made the thing in the picture,” notes Pacific-Standard.
    “Religious participants’ baseline tendency to endorse nature as purposefully created was higher” than that of atheists, the study found. But non-religious participants “increasingly defaulted to understanding natural phenomena as purposefully made” when “they did not have time to censor their thinking,” wrote the researchers.
    The results suggest that “the tendency to construe both living and non-living nature as intentionally made derives from automatic cognitive processes, not just practised explicit beliefs,” the report concluded.
    The results were similar even among subjects from Finland, where atheism is not a controversial issue as it can be in the US.
    “Design-based intuitions run deep,” the researchers conclude, “persisting even in those with no explicit religious commitment and, indeed, even among those with an active aversion to them.”
    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/richa.....dy-1505712

    In fact, studies have now shown that atheists have to mentally work suppressing their own “knee jerk” reaction as to seeing purpose behind the universe:

    Is Atheism a Delusion?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ii-bsrHB0o

    In other words, it is not that Atheists do not see purpose and/or Design in nature, it is that Atheists, for whatever severely misguided reason, live in denial of the purpose and/or Design that they themselves see in nature.

    Here is a particularly crystal clear example of an atheist suppressing his innate design inference:

    “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”
    Francis Crick – What Mad Pursuit

    Also off note: Denialism is considered a fairly serious mental illness:

    Denialism
    In the psychology of human behavior, denialism is a person’s choice to deny reality, as a way to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth.[1] Denialism is an essentially irrational action that withholds the validation of a historical experience or event, when a person refuses to accept an empirically verifiable reality.[2]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism

    Thus to conclude, I hold the preceding studies of atheists suppressing their innate ability to see design and purpose in nature to be confirming evidence for Romans 1:19-20

    Romans 1:19-20
    For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

  15. 15

    Seversky asks:

    On the other hand, if Dahmer was already a psychopath but simply seized on “Darwinism” as a later justification for his murderous tendencies then how is evolution in any way to blame for what he did?

    How would evolution NOT be to blame?

  16. 16
    Seversky says:

    EricMH @ 4

    @Seversky, Description becomes prescription

    In terms of moral prescription, which is what we are basically talking about, only if you make an impermissible leap across the is/ought gap.

  17. 17
    Seversky says:

    William J Murray @ 15

    How would evolution NOT be to blame?

    If your intelligent designer existed then he, she or it would be to blame?

    Besides, in what sense can a natural process be to blame for anything in the sense of acting with malice aforethought? Are you going to arrest the lightning bolt that accidentally kills a golfer and charge it with negligent homicide?

Leave a Reply