Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Thought for the Day

Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

From Nietzsche’s The Gay Science:

Thus the question “Why science?” leads back to the moral problem: Why have morality at all when life, nature, and history are “not moral”? No doubt, those who are truthful in that audacious and ultimate sense that is presupposed by the faith in science thus affirm another world than the world of life, nature, and history; and insofar as they affirm this “other world”—look, must they not by that same token negate its counterpart, this world, our world?—But you will have gathered what I am driving at, namely, that it is still a metaphysical faith upon which our faith in science rests—that even we seekers after knowledge today, we godless anti-metaphysicians, still take our fire, too, from the flame lit by a faith that is thousands of years old, that Christian faith which was also the faith of Plato, that God is the truth, that truth is divine. (Nietzsche’s emphases)

Tip of the hat to Ed Oakes.

Then there is this from Oakes himself:

Such obtuseness is shared by most liberals today, who merrily fuse opposition to capital punishment, support for abortion and doctor-assisted suicide, condemnation of racism, and a vaguely appreciative acquaintance with evolutionary theory—without the least sense of the impossible dilemmas entailed in these contradictory positions.

Comments
According to the explanatory filter used by ID, life - in general - is too complex to have arisen through chance and regularity. --Q
That is false. The PROPER use of the EF demonstrates that both complexity AND specification criteria have to be met in order to infer design.
That is contractictory to the tenets of ID, once the origin of all life is added to the discussion, because ID explicitely claims that life was too complex to have originated without an intelligent agent to design it, and ID posits that it must have happened before any material intelligence existed.--Q
Also false. ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92): 1. High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design. 2. Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity. 3. Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity. 4. Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems. ID argues against materialism in that ID states that not everything is reducible to matter & energy.Joseph
January 31, 2008
January
01
Jan
31
31
2008
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PST
Q:
ID explicitely claims that life was too complex to have originated without an intelligent agent to design it, and ID posits that it must have happened before any material intelligence existed.
ID only posits the study of evidence of intelligent causation. Now, Dembski's sub-theory of SC may make your claims, but SC is a subset of ID, SC is not ID.bFast
January 31, 2008
January
01
Jan
31
31
2008
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PST
Q: ID posits that it must have happened before any material intelligence existed. I don't remember reading this anywhere. Somehow I doubt that this is part of the ID hypothesis. A material intelligence certainly could have designed life as we know it based on available evidence.Mapou
January 31, 2008
January
01
Jan
31
31
2008
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PST
bFast, 30, Hey, Q, why not just go with Occam’s Razor, and with Anthony Flew, and conclude that the designer might in fact be God. I'm not arguing against that point. My concern is with claims such as BarryA's (9) ID does NOT posit a supernatural designer. and DaveScot's (27) There’s nothing at all immaterial that I have ever needed to call upon in supporting the hypothesis that life on this planet required at least some input from an intelligent agency. It’s all based on probability, physical law, observational and experimental evidence. Those type of comments suggest that ID's claims about the origin of life can be investigated without including the non-material. That is contractictory to the tenets of ID, once the origin of all life is added to the discussion, because ID explicitely claims that life was too complex to have originated without an intelligent agent to design it, and ID posits that it must have happened before any material intelligence existed.Q
January 31, 2008
January
01
Jan
31
31
2008
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PST
Q:
According to the explanatory filter used by ID, life - in general - is too complex to have arisen through chance and regularity. So, it seems, at some point in the quest for understanding the origin of life through ID, some non-material aspects of nature must be introduced.
Certainly the most obvious solution to the enigma of Intelligence is that there is "some non-material aspects of nature" -- some pre-existing intelligence -- God. Great, let us choose the logical path and believe in God. However, there may be other conceivable options: 1 - within or outside of this universe, there may be an infinitely long chain of intelligences causing new intelligences. It may be that some day scientists create their own big-bang, spawning a new universe, and those scientists influence that universe to create a new intelligent species. Or it could be, like the panspermia people suggest, that the big bang is a scientific error, that the universe, and intelligences spawning new intelligences, always existed. 2 - Within the framework of DNA, RNA and Proteins, the evidence that I see suggests that life spawning from non-life just didn't happen without help. However, what about a different environment? Maybe a very different creature, thing the crystaline entity of Startreck TNG fame, was able to spawn from non-intelligence. Maybe that life-form somehow avoided the chicken-egg problem that DNA/Protein is, and the irreduceable complexity problems, and all of the other problems. Maybe it isn't even information based, as we understand it. Hey, Q, why not just go with Occam's Razor, and with Anthony Flew, and conclude that the designer might in fact be God.bFast
January 31, 2008
January
01
Jan
31
31
2008
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PST
DaveScot, 27, says There’s nothing at all immaterial that I have ever needed to call upon in supporting the hypothesis that life on this planet required at least some input from an intelligent agency. Oh, then there are two different discussions. One, as you mentioned, about life on this planet. Another, is life in general. If life on this planet arrived from the purely material and intelligent actions of other material beings, then the first question could be answered as purely material. But, for the second part - life in general - we would need to extrapolate back to that other life form, and see it's origin. This is the only way to determine if life could arise through purely material actions - like chance and regularity - or whether it required an intelligent agent before any material intelligent agents existed. I.e., the question is still about whether the original life was designed as ID states, or whether it could have arrived anywhere through material chance and regulariry? According to the explanatory filter used by ID, life - in general - is too complex to have arisen through chance and regularity. So, it seems, at some point in the quest for understanding the origin of life through ID, some non-material aspects of nature must be introduced.Q
January 31, 2008
January
01
Jan
31
31
2008
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PST
Vance says-
You know, this post sparked something I have been pondering for a while. Here is where so many of us Christians get it wrong: The problem lies in that too many Christians seem to be viewing science as “the search for truth” wherever it may lie. And that is understandable because we live in a society which has come to think that such truth does, indeed, lie within the grasp (eventually) of scientific inquiry. We have elevated science beyond its limited scope and into a role for which it was never intended: arbiter of truth. And if science is going to tell us what TRUTH is, we want to make sure that it is looking in all the right places!! Perfectly understandable.
Vance, your argument that "us" Christians get it wrong because we fail to grasp the proper role and definition of science from what it should be (i.e. not the search for truth but a physical process of discovery and explanation) is in fact just methodological materialism because the essence of science lies in the philosophical precepts of inquisition and desire. In other words while the process of science is materialistic the extent and range of its implications are not- yet the metaphysical reasoning that is considered by some as unscientific is nonetheless real- and many will venture to say that the thought of man are in fact physical and hence in this sense our metaphysical desire fro the search of reason and truth is in fact part of science. First of all we need to address ID in the fullness of its claim. It is a theory or explanation to the ultimate question of origins- It has a competitor which is called methodological materialistic Darwinism. Now, we Christians are not saying that we need to know the truth about what causes a disease before we can try to develop some treatments for it- no, we are not seeking ultimate truth but... when you are talking about an explanation which is a theory to a most illusive and important question of origins- anyone should want to debate the validity of that claim. To assert that the desire for truth is getting in the way of an explanation of origins is absolutely ridiculous. How we live our lives, rather we choose to worship- how we view philosophy and theology, how we live our lives and run society is influenced by ones interpretation of life, nature and science- so in this sense we are treating a patient called “Origins” and we need to know which treatment is gong to work the best. We don’t need to know for sure if one is ultimately true or not but we need to compare and weigh the options in all of their totality. There is no reason to exclude ID as a theory and expanation of origins unless you start from the position of negative (unfair) bias against ID- which will ultimately be rooted opinion and emotive thinking because no scientific reasoning has to date replaced or expelled the theory. Don’t confuse science with explanations and truth- truth is always the end goal in any search- (who would seek the wrong answer?) Science is merely the process whereby we work through to obtain truth- and to criticize anyone for expecting an explanation to be truthful is either guided by a dishonest personal agenda or is born out of ignorance of the importance of this subject. Truth and individualistic mindsets are real and in fact are part of any comprehensive definition of science. The anti Id people love to quote that "science is a verb" – but dare look it up in the dictionary and you may find to your dismay that it is in fact a noun. And like all things it is extended and exists connect to the rest of the physical universe. Nothing in this world exists in a vacuum and if a definition of science is merely this physical process where by everyone must agree with a given set of data for it to be considered scientific - science would be meaningless and of little use because its role always begins with a question- what your definition of science requires is all "facts" and most of science and especially theories are by this definition scientifically deficient- especially Origins. We are debating the validity of the scinece and the conclusions poeple draw from it as they stand on their on two feet. Lets not confuse conclusions and explanations and inferences with scinence. Id is a scientifically "supported theory" and explanation of origins- Id is not and never will equate to "science" per se' in the vanacular- and neither will Darwinism. So to debate the definition of science is shortsighted and moot- the debate lies in the conclusions drawn from data and the facts weighed across comparative explanatory lines- and design finds itself very comfortable in this debate- that is after we stop the methodological materialistic legal rambling- :)Frost122585
January 31, 2008
January
01
Jan
31
31
2008
02:51 AM
2
02
51
AM
PST
Q There's nothing at all immaterial that I have ever needed to call upon in supporting the hypothesis that life on this planet required at least some input from an intelligent agency. It's all based on probability, physical law, observational and experimental evidence. jerry Excellent take on the situation in your comment 24. I agree in all particulars. DaveScot
January 31, 2008
January
01
Jan
31
31
2008
01:17 AM
1
01
17
AM
PST
BarryA, in 21, says Similarly, ID is a scientific project; it is not a metaphysical (or as you suggest, theological) project. That is the part that doesn't make sense. From all that I see, ID depends upon a dualist nature - material vs. non-material. There are some specific questions that are innate in ID that are beyond materialism. For instance, questions of what are the material boundaries of the intelligent designer are excluded, as per another current thread. Questions about the nature of intelligence seem to be inextricably intertwined with the philosophy that mind is the non-material side of brain. Questions about agency include a distinct separation from the material chance and regularity, which seems to include some characteristic beyond simple cause-and-effect, or even quantum indeterminism. To be only "scientific", ID would only address the material aspects of its claims and predictions. There would be no limits as to what could be interrogated, questioned, and tested, so long as it was material. Other aspects that seem to be included in ID are philosophical, and are not "scientific", in the sense that predictions are made, followed by observations, and conclusions. I think it should be fine that ID includes the non-material as part of its foundation, and that it not be necessary to hide it.Q
January 31, 2008
January
01
Jan
31
31
2008
12:13 AM
12
12
13
AM
PST
Vance writes: “Let’s face it, all of us are theists. Almost every proponent of ID is a theist.” “We” (by which I take it you mean ID proponents) are not all theists. As I mentioned above, David Berlinski is not a theist. Vance writes: “If there were compelling non-theistic arguments for ID . . .” This statement demonstrates a great deal of confusion on your part. Not only are there compelling non-theistic arguments for ID, ALL arguments for ID are non-theistic. Vance writes: “we would see a significant number of non-theistic scientists saying ‘yeah, that’s right!’ Volumes have been written about why more scientists don’t follow the data to where it is obviously leading, and I won’t add to that literature here. I will say only that you obviously have no idea how difficult it is to swim against the intellectual current. Just ask Guillermo Gonzalez. Few people have the courage of Gonzalez to risk their careers bucking the enforcers of the rigid materialist orthodoxy that have ensnared our institutions.BarryA
January 30, 2008
January
01
Jan
30
30
2008
08:29 PM
8
08
29
PM
PST
The designer of life could be of this universe or not of this universe. ID does not know or speculate. There is no scientific information that is presently available that lets one do more than provide wild speculations. If the designer of life was of this universe we would need data from his/her/its environments to make a judgment whether the designer could have arisen by natural causes. The designer may be of a form of life we cannot yet comprehend because it arose in a completely different environment. Thus, the designer would not have to be carbon based but might have found it necessary to use a carbon based basis for life on our planet. I am not saying I believe this but we have no information to rule it out. There is also some thinking that carbon did not exist in any great amount till about 8 billion years after the big bang and that corresponds to when our solar system was forming. So who says that the designer had to be carbon based. If for our planet someone showed a method how complex carbon based molecules could have arisen based on natural processes, we would probably not be having this discussion. So far no one has presented such a process. But we do not know what we would think if some other planetary system existed that had an environment that led to complex molecules because the planet formed in a completely different way.jerry
January 30, 2008
January
01
Jan
30
30
2008
08:24 PM
8
08
24
PM
PST
Vance writes: “Listen, I know that there are many political reasons for not wanting to tie ID to a particular theistic belief, but at some point, doesn’t this type of argument smack of intellectual dishonesty?” Piffle. ID’s refusal to discuss the nature of the designer has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with the fact that ID is science, not theology. Some Darwinists say that Darwinism demonstrates there is no God. Utter balderdash. THAT is intellectually dishonest. And an ID theorists would be just as dishonest if he were to say that ID demonstrates that there is a God. ID, as science, simply does not deal with the question of the existence of God, just as Darwinism does not deal with the question of the existence of God. Whether God exists is not a question that can be approached through scientific means.BarryA
January 30, 2008
January
01
Jan
30
30
2008
08:21 PM
8
08
21
PM
PST
Vance writes: “If you say what we have could not be the result of purely natural (or unintelligent) forces, then you are positing something *if you go back far enough*, that IS supernatural.” No, I am not. See my comment 20. I hope you are getting your categories straight now.BarryA
January 30, 2008
January
01
Jan
30
30
2008
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PST
Vance writes: “But does that not get us back to the ‘question which must not be asked,’ whether the entire concept of ID, which must be taken to its logical extreme to be tested for validity, ultimately requires something supernatural to create the intelligence?” Consider this. Let us say for the sake of argument that Darwinism is a scientific project. Even though Darwinism is science and not metaphysics, many Darwinists are very sanguine about the metaphysical IMPLICATIONS of that theory. While atheism is not now and has never been a hypothesis that supports the theory, the theory nevertheless makes many atheists happy (or fulfilled as Dawkins says). Similarly, ID is a scientific project; it is not a metaphysical (or as you suggest, theological) project. Even though ID is science and not metaphysics, many ID theorists (but certainly not all; David Berlinski is an atheist or at least an agnostic) are very sanguine about the metaphysical IMPLICATIONS of the theory. While a supernatural creator is not now and has never been a hypothesis that supports the theory, the theory nevertheless makes many theists happy. You say that whether the creator is supernatural is the “question which must not be asked.” No, that is just the opposite of correct. Within the realm of science, that is the “question that cannot be answered.” There is insufficient data upon which to base any valid SCIENTIFIC conclusion about the nature of the creator (other than that he/she/it is able to create). Therefore, ID, as good science, remains silent. In other words, the question is simply not one that can be approached through the methods of science at this time.BarryA
January 30, 2008
January
01
Jan
30
30
2008
08:12 PM
8
08
12
PM
PST
Q, I don't understand why you are confused. I simply stated at the beginning what I restated at the end. Vance's computer is a complex object. I was using it as a more accessible stand-in for the complexity of life. Neither Vance's computer nor the complexity of life could have been created by "natural forces," if by "natural forces" one means chance and necessity alone. Both are the result of the actions of, as bFast states, an intelligent agent. Q then writes: "As I understand it, ID doesn’t posit that the agency which created us was a living agency - that agency may or may not have been non-material." You are correct. ID does not posit that the agent is "living" (by which I presume you mean a carbon based biological entity similar to a human only more advanced). Nor does ID posit that the agent is material or non-material. ID makes no statements about the designer other than that he/she/it designed. Q then writes: "Is your comment that the agency that created Vance’s computer may not be of 'natural forces', or is the argument that not all agents need be of 'natural forces'." Neither. My comment at 14 runs to this point. Vance created a false dichotomy when he said that the designer must be supernatural. The confusion stems not from poor logic but imprecise use of language. Wittgenstein again: “Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language.” Vance states that “non-natural” means “supernatural.” His confusion is understandable because in one sense of the word “non-natural” he is correct. Unfortunately, that is not the sense of the word used in ID theory. When an ID theorists says “non-natural” he does not mean “supernatural.” He means “not caused by chance and mechanical necessity alone.” And here’s the important point: when one says that an effect was “not caused by chance and mechanical necessity alone,” that is simply not the same thing as saying it was caused by a supernatural agent, as the computer example was intended to illustrate.BarryA
January 30, 2008
January
01
Jan
30
30
2008
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PST
Vance, The argument for biological evolution does not require a supernatural intelligent force. This is clearly established at panspermia.org. The panspermia community rejects the big bang, and concludes that as the universe always existed, so intelligent agents have always existed. If matter could have always existed, it is just as reasonable that intelligence always existed, like why not. Alas, the cosmological ID is a bit of another kettle of fish. If our universe is the product of an intelligent agent then that agent must be outside of our universe, and even outside of time as we know it, as time itself seems to have started with the bang. It remains, the fundimental reason that ID must recognize the possibility that we are the product of a non-supernatural intelligent agent is this: if it is conceivable that we are the product of a non-intelligent agent, then the investigation of our intelligent causation is no longer of necessity an investigation of the supernatural. If it is possible to investigate intelligent causation by an unknown intelligent agent, then such an investigation cannot be eliminated from science "a priori". Further, who's to say that a supernatural agent didn't create a natural, intelligent agent, and that we are the product of that agent's work. If we are the product of an "natural" intelligent agent which is the product of a supernatural agent, then we are still the result of a natural intelligent agent; yet the "who created" question is moot.bFast
January 30, 2008
January
01
Jan
30
30
2008
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PST
But does that not get us back to the “question which must not be asked”, whether the entire concept of ID, which must be taken to its logical extreme to be tested for validity, ultimately requires something supernatural to create the intelligence? Have you tried taking Darwinism to its logical extreme lately? If you had, you would have noticed immediately that it has no validity. Life never started in Darwinism for the simple reason that no naturalisitic mechanism or condition can start it. I just don’t think this strategy of attempting to secularize the ID movement is really fooling anyone, and so it just makes ID look dishonest. I just don't think that the strategy of attempting to hide atheism behind evolution is fooling anyone either. Having said that, the reason, in my opinion, that the ID movement refuses to go beyond the design hypothesis to identify the designer has to do with the fact that education in the US is run by the government. The secular government is forbidden by law to teach any form of religion in the classroom other than as comparative study. There is nothing dishonest about the ID stance since no ID proponent is hiding their religious convictions from anybody, as far as I know. It is a strategic stance based on legal grounds. It is also a scientific stance since the design hypothesis does make predictions whithout having to identify the designer. Your vain attempt at making a lame point to satisfy your personal bias has been noted. If you don't like ID, you can always go cry on PZ Myers' shoulders. :-DMapou
January 30, 2008
January
01
Jan
30
30
2008
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PST
But does that not get us back to the "question which must not be asked", whether the entire concept of ID, which must be taken to its logical extreme to be tested for validity, ultimately requires something supernatural to create the intelligence? If you say what we have could not be the result of purely natural (or unintelligent) forces, then you are positing something *if you go back far enough*, that IS supernatural. Listen, I know that there are many political reasons for not wanting to tie ID to a particular theistic belief, but at some point, doesn't this type of argument smack of intellectual dishonesty? Let's face it, all of us are theists. Almost every proponent of ID is a theist. If there were compelling non-theistic arguments for ID, we would see a significant number of non-theistic scientists saying "yeah, that's right!". But we don't. I just don't think this strategy of attempting to secularize the ID movement is really fooling anyone, and so it just makes ID look dishonest.Vance
January 30, 2008
January
01
Jan
30
30
2008
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PST
Q, let me translate for BarryA a bit. Exchange "natural" for "unintelligent". "look at your computer...It could not possibly have been created by "unintelligent forces".bFast
January 30, 2008
January
01
Jan
30
30
2008
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PST
BarryA, now I'm confused with your claim. You make two points "look at your computer....It could not possibly have been created by “natural forces.” and then mention Agency is the best current explanation for the observed complexity of life. We know the computer is not life. We know that was created by life - us. So, we know that the agency that created the computer was a living agency. As I understand it, ID doesn't posit that the agency which created us was a living agency - that agency may or may not have been non-material. Is your comment that the agency that created Vance's computer may not be of "natural forces", or is the argument that not all agents need be of "natural forces".Q
January 30, 2008
January
01
Jan
30
30
2008
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PST
Vance, look at your computer. It is a high complex machine that was designed and created by an intelligent agent. It could not possibly have been created by “natural forces.” Was your computer created by a supernatural power? Blind watchmaker Darwinism posits that chance and necessity alone are sufficient to account for the observed complexity of life. ID posits two things. 1. The probability that chance and necessity alone could produce the observed complexity of life is vanishingly small. 2. Agency is the best current explanation for the observed complexity of life. By confusing terms you have created a false dichotomy. When ID says that “natural forces” could not have produced the observed complexity of life, it means nothing more than that chance and necessity alone could not produce the observed complexity of life. It does not mean that a supernatural agent must have acted. Just as the human who produced your highly complex computer is not supernatural, it may be that the agent who caused the complexity of life is not supernatural. Or he/she/it may be. Thus, a supernatural agent is not necessary for, or posited by, the Id theory, and ID theory does not speak to that point at this time.BarryA
January 30, 2008
January
01
Jan
30
30
2008
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PST
Yes, Barry, that is what I thought, but would not such a designer, by definition, have to be supernatural if the ID argument is that the design couldn't be the result of solely naturalistic processes? Doesn't "not naturalistic" necessarily mean "supernaturalistic"? I know we don't have to identify the designer (and I understand the political "issues" in doing so), but that much at least we would have to posit, don't you think?Vance
January 30, 2008
January
01
Jan
30
30
2008
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PST
Vance, ID theory does not speculate about the nature of the designer other than that he/she/it is able to design. The point is that we do not need to know anything about the nature of the designer, his/her/its motives, etc. in order to infer design.BarryA
January 30, 2008
January
01
Jan
30
30
2008
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PST
Vance- The natural alternatives I've heard of are aliens or time travelers. I don't think any of the major ID proponents have spent much effort in describing those ideas and their implications.congregate
January 30, 2008
January
01
Jan
30
30
2008
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PST
Barry, good point, there is no explicit claim of a particular supernatural deity. I agree that my description there was from the Christian perspective on ID, and accepting the underlying truth that most ID proponents do believe in a such a particular designer. While I had known that the major ID proponents did not specify the exact nature of the designer, I really was under the impression that the "designer" would, necessarily be "supernatural". That is interesting. Could you point me to a description of the "natural designer" idea? Thanks!Vance
January 30, 2008
January
01
Jan
30
30
2008
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PST
Vance, you make several good points and one key error that blows everything else away. You write: "Now ID becomes an interesting middle ground. On the one hand, the actual ID scientists want to play by these rules and say that using natural evidence objectively, we can surmise a supernatural involvement." This is wrong. ID does NOT posit a supernatural designer.BarryA
January 30, 2008
January
01
Jan
30
30
2008
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PST
To focus centrally on the appeasement and happiness of the self (the true aim of liberalism) is in the end not liberation but imprisonment and isolation from the things that are of true value such as our faith and principles and their inspiration which lead us to contribute to society. Ultimately liberalism is a chosen form of short sightedness that stems from our own refusal to own up to the totality of our fallibility and the starkness of life’s challenges which together amount to what is known as "the human condition." The truth about liberal values is that they are incompatible with life's reality and quickly wither away when confronted by the inevitable harshness of reality’s piper and his universal law of no free lunches. Our commitment should not be to thy self but to the belief in higher principles, values and standards by which humanity may try to rise to- not to the lowest common denominator of those values which seemingly come to us “naturally,” easily, and agreeably without thorough introspection, examination and inevitably sacrifice- Richness, intelligence and tenacity are no substitutes for faith, wisdome and virtue- and they do not equate into self worth. We are not given nor can be buy self love and respect- it must be earned. Liberalism ignores the objective reality of these high values. It is in this sense the philosophical excuse for life's hard reality. It bestows on its fallowers a quick and seemingly inexpensive fix to the problems and provides relativly immediate gratification- but it cannot quench the thrist of the spirit- For where men do not address the value of their condition in the fullness of its claim their experience fails to cross the threshold of significance. For value can exist effectively only where there are men committed to it. Yet, we should have no illusions- no such values of high order and esteem can be born from a dishonest, nihilistic philosophy who's center focus is the worship of “self” through immediate gratification, the easiest way out, and avoidance of responsibility by denial of reality and the totality of it's claim on the spirit. Man is not designed to be an ignorent taker and so liberism leaves us empty and unfulfilled. History has proven that liberlism always leads us to a hopeless dead end and in this sense it should always be known as "the God that failed."Frost122585
January 29, 2008
January
01
Jan
29
29
2008
11:00 PM
11
11
00
PM
PST
To focus centrally on the appeasement and happiness of the self (the true aim of liberalism) is in the end not liberation but imprisonment and isolation from the things that are of true value such as our faith and principles and their inspiration which lead us to contribute to society. Ultimately liberalism is a chosen form of short sightedness that stems from our own refusal to own up to the totality of our fallibility and the starkness of life’s challenges which together amount to what is known as "the human condition." The truth about liberal values is that they are incompatible with life's reality and quickly wither away when confronted by the inevitable harshness of reality’s piper and his universal law of no free lunches. Our commitment should not be to thy self but to the belief in higher principles, values and standards by which humanity may try to rise to- not to the lowest common denominator of those values which seemingly come to us “naturally,” easily, and agreeably without thorough introspection, examination and inevitably sacrifice- Richness, intelligence and tenacity are no substitutes for faith, wisdome and virtue- and they do not equate into self worth. We are not given nor can be buy self love and respect- it must be earned. Liberalism ignores the objective reality of these high values. It is in this sense the philosophical excuse for life's hard reality. It bestows on its fallowers a quick and seemingly inexpensive fix to the problems and provides relativly immediate gratification- but it cannot quench the thrist of the spirit- For where men do not address the value of their condition in the fullness of its claim their experience fails to cross the threshold of significance. For value can exist effectively only where there are men committed to it. Yet, we should have no illusions- no such values of high order and esteem can be born from a dishonest, nihilistic philosophy who's center focus is the worship of “self” through immediate gratification, the easiest way out, and avoidance of responsibility by denial of reality and the totality of it's claim on the spirit. Man is not designed to be an ignorent taker and so liberism leaves us empty and unfulfilled. History has proven that liberlism always leads us to a hopeless dead end and in this sense it should always be known as "the God that failed."Frost122585
January 29, 2008
January
01
Jan
29
29
2008
11:00 PM
11
11
00
PM
PST
But it takes years of therapy to arrive at the liberal point of view.
And much twisting of the language to defend those points of view. In no other context than the abortion question do we speak about the legal right to do a thing as the right to "choose" it. We do not say we have the right to "choose" to bear arms, or "choose" to assemble to petition our goverment for a redress of grievances. We are not pro-choice on free speech or religion, or anti-choice on school prayer or school vouchers. But the word "choice" somehow gives the impression that its not the "abortion" they want, but "the abortion or the not-abortion", "if you would only let us choose".russ
January 29, 2008
January
01
Jan
29
29
2008
09:03 PM
9
09
03
PM
PST
I concur with Ed, as I have written that the liberalism that finds evolutionary theory central can barely look the beast in they eye.jjcassidy
January 29, 2008
January
01
Jan
29
29
2008
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PST
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply