Intelligent Design

Welcome to the Brave New World of “Science”

Spread the love

by Emily Morales

January 1, 2020

It’s a pretty scary thing when the world of respected science is turned on its head due to adherence and homage to the Idols of the Marketplace, as elucidated by 17th century statesman, Francis Bacon.

Francis Bacon, credited as the “father” of the scientific method, spoke in detail in The Great Instauration concerning four types of idols occupying the minds of humans, which serve to get in the way of ascertaining and advancing knowledge of the natural world: 1) Idols of the Tribe, 2) Idols of the Cave, 3) Idols of the Marketplace, and, 4) Idols of the Theater.

The Idols of the Marketplace were characterized as being the most menacing, as these creep into the minds of humans by way of terms and definitions for things that are not necessarily tangible or concrete, within the human “marketplace.” We might today find that these grab hold by way of the marketplace of the media. Consider that when the notion of transgenderism first appeared, how many people truly believed that a person could change their gender by the pronouncement of a new pronoun? Probably not many, initially, but today, since this Idol has made its way in the nooks and crannies of every shop and coffee house of the human cyber-marketplace, folks may feel the pressure to sacrifice real science in homage to this newfound idol (after all, it comes with it’s own lovely rainbow flag).

For more on Bacon’s discussion, consider the below article:
https://salvomag.com/post/bacons-enchanted-glass

We might even see where Darwinism has enjoyed similar adherence from the materialistic faithful, as a cursed idol of Bacon’s marketplace. Darwin, in his day was excoriated by Adam Sedgewick (his mentor of the past) for abandoning the tram-road of inductive thinking (Baconian methodology) in favor of embracing the methodologies associated with deductive reasoning carried out by the likes of Aristotle.

https://salvomag.com/post/darwin-may-have-gotten-it-wrong

Sedgewick was not alone in his criticism of Darwin. Louis Agassiz, at Harvard similarly rebuked Darwin for a thesis having no support in the known fossil record (refer to Stephen Meyer’s book Darwin’s Doubt). Note that neither of these men pushed back against Darwin because they were creationists – it was rather that Darwin drew some conclusions on the diversity of life and origin of species that were presumptuous to say the least. As it turns out, Bacon addressed the dangers of this manner of “logic” and “reasoning,” at length, warning us of its ability to stifle scientific inquiry two hundred and thirty years before Darwin’s published work.

Bacon today, would not be impressed with where the brave new world of science is heading. Rather than holding on to those facts that are the fruit of repeated experimentation or steadied observation, society is clinging to fallacies that are oftentimes the fruit of a past college professor’s wild imagination. We best take head of these wild imaginations, no matter how absurd they are – because they eventually show up in your child’s Kindergarten curriculum, and taught as fact!

Reference/ Notes:

Bacon, F. (2016). New Atlantis and the Great Instauration. John Wiley & Sons.

Meyer, S. C. (2014). Darwin’s doubt: Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design. New York.

126 Replies to “Welcome to the Brave New World of “Science”

  1. 1
    Seversky says:

    Given her scientific education. one would expect Emily Morales to understand that science, unlike her religion, is not in the business of passing moral judgments on how people choose to live their lives. One would also expect her to understand the difference between biological sex and gender, the first being based on physical attributes, the other being a cultural construct. I assume she would agree that there is no biological reason why girls should wear dresses, prefer the color pink or play with dolls or boys should prefer the color blue and active outdoor physical pursuits.. These are cultural norms for what is considered acceptable manifestations in one society of the physical sex, nothing more.

    I would also like to hear, given her qualification in apologetics, how she defends the following:

    A man in the US accused of killing his 11-year-old diabetic daughter by praying instead of seeking medical care has been found guilty of second-degree reckless homicide.

    Dale Neumann, 47, was convicted over the death of his daughter, Madeline, from undiagnosed diabetes.

    Prosecutors contended he should have rushed the girl to a hospital because she couldn’t walk, talk, eat or drink. Instead, Madeline died on the floor of the family’s rural home as people surrounded her and prayed. Someone called an ambulance when she stopped breathing.

    […]

    Neumann, who once studied to be a Pentecostal minister, testified on Thursday that he believed God would heal his daughter and he never expected her to die. God promises in the Bible to heal, he said.

    “If I go to the doctor, I am putting the doctor before God,” Neumann testified. “I am not believing what he said he would do.”

    […]

    Their case is believed to be the first in the midwestern state of Wisconsin involving faith healing in which someone died and another person was charged with a homicide.

    […]

    Last month, a jury in the western US state of Oregon convicted a man of misdemeanour criminal mistreatment for relying on prayer instead of seeking medical care for his 15-month-old daughter who died of pneumonia and a blood infection in March 2008. Both of the girl’s parents were acquitted of a more serious manslaughter charge.

  2. 2

    I would question your credentials as a reader, where did I make any moral judgements concerning transgenderism? My judgement on the matter stems from the fact that the notion one can change their gender simply because they change a pronoun is absurd, and does not constitute “science.” as we know it.

    Because this movement is given undue science creds, there are many implications for society: one is legal protection for biological men to be allowed access to women’s places – traumatizing women; medical procedures and treatments that pose unusual risk for minors; and the introduction of a politicized curricula to very young people.

    Perhaps you might enjoy reading The Great Instauration so that you may see where the logic and arguments you are presenting to me are reminiscent of Bacon’s Idols of the Cave, and Idols of the Mind. He eschews people who paint with a broad brush and draw assertions on natural systems based upon minimal investigation.

    And indeed, I would concur with you that just because a girl is a girl does not mean she wants to wear dresses and play with dolls, and our expectation that she do just that is cultural.

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    Welcome to UD Emily Morales.

  4. 4

    Thank you, Bornagain77. Looks to be a real trip! 🙂

  5. 5
    AaronS1978 says:

    Wow!! Awesome to have you!
    I’m already a fan ????

  6. 6

    Thank you AaronS1978! I think it will be fun! Really, science is so much on our side – even if we practice it the way Bacon intended.

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky states that,

    “science, unlike her religion, is not in the business of passing moral judgments on how people choose to live their lives”,

    Really Seversky?? how people choose to live their lives”,???? Do you now believe in free will Seversky??? Come on Seversky get with the program and at least try to be consistent within your Atheistic materialism. You are a ‘meat robot’ PERIOD! You have no free will to choose anything, much less choosing how you may want to live your life.

    “You are robots made out of meat. Which is what I am going to try to convince you of today”
    – Jerry Coyne –
    No, You’re Not a Robot Made Out of Meat (Science Uprising 02) – video
    https://youtu.be/rQo6SWjwQIk?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS1OmYcqv_yQSpje4p7rAE7-&t=20

    THE ILLUSION OF FREE WILL – Sam Harris – 2012
    Excerpt: “Free will is an illusion so convincing that people simply refuse to believe that we don’t have it.”
    – Jerry Coyne
    https://samharris.org/the-illusion-of-free-will/

    Moreover, contrary to Seversky’s claim that “science, unlike her religion, is not in the business of passing moral judgments on how people choose to live their lives”, the fact of the matter is that the moral rot of the false science of Darwinian atheism does indeed directly morally impact how people may choose to live their lives. Specifically, the nihilism inherent in the false doctrine of Atheistic Materialism drives people into moral despair.

    In making this point clear, it is first important to point out that although the Darwinian Atheist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science, (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that Darwinists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to:

    Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must hold beauty itself to be illusory.
    Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,,
    Darwinian Materialism and/or Methodological Naturalism vs. Reality – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaksmYceRXM

    Needless to say atheistic materialism, a worldview that is devoid of any real meaning, beauty or purpose, for life is a severely impoverished, even severely depressing, worldview for anyone to falsely believe to be true.

    Indeed, such an impoverished view of life goes a very long way towards explaining exactly why Christians report being much happier than atheists are,

    ‘Believers are happier than atheists’ – Jonathan Petre – 18 Mar 2008
    People who believe in God are happier than agnostics or atheists,
    A report found that religious people were better able to cope with disappointments such as unemployment or divorce than non-believers.
    Moreover, they become even happier the more they pray and go to church, claims the study by Prof Andrew Clark and Dr Orsolya Lelkes.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1581994/Believers-are-happier-than-atheists.html

    and also explains why Christians have significantly fewer suicide attempts than atheists do,

    Of snakebites and suicide – February 18, 2014
    RESULTS: Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first-degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a religious affiliation.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....d-suicide/

    and also explains why Christians report having greater life satisfaction than atheists do,

    Associations of Religious Upbringing With Subsequent Health and Well-Being From Adolescence to Young Adulthood: An Outcome-Wide Analysis
    Ying Chen, Tyler J VanderWeele – Sept. 10, 2018
    Excerpt: Compared with no attendance, at least weekly attendance of religious services was associated with greater life satisfaction and positive affect, a number of character strengths, lower probabilities of marijuana use and early sexual initiation, and fewer lifetime sexual partners. Analyses of prayer or meditation yielded similar results. Although decisions about religion are not shaped principally by health, encouraging service attendance and private practices in adolescents who already hold religious beliefs may be meaningful avenues of development and support, possibly leading to better health and well-being.
    https://academic.oup.com/aje/advance-article/doi/10.1093/aje/kwy142/5094534

    and also explains why Christians having less mental and physical health issues than atheists do,

    “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

    and also explains why Christians live significantly longer than atheists do.

    Study: Religiously affiliated people live “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/

    Thus Seversky may claim that his atheistic materialism, (which he constantly falsely portrays as being ‘science’), has no moral impact on how people choose to live their lives, but the fact of the matter is that the nihilism inherent in Atheistic Materialism does indeed directly negatively morally impact how people choose to live their lives.

    Of supplemental note, Seversky once again attacked Christianity for a father praying for his daughter and allowing her to die instead of seeking medical treatment for her. What Seversky will NEVER tell you are the millions of lives that have been saved by medicines that were developed by devout Christians:

    smallpox: Edward Jenner was an English physician and scientist who was the pioneer of smallpox vaccine,,,, His father was the Reverend Stephen Jenner,,,
    “The most famous champion of vaccination was a Christian doctor, *Edward Jenner* who did his work against fierce opposition and in the teeth of threats against himself. In effect he wiped out smallpox from among the diseases that terrify mankind. He died from a cold caught carrying firewood to an impoverished woman.”
    http://www.rae.org/pdf/influsci.pdf

    Ernst Chain, who was awarded the 1945 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine, and is considered to be one of the founders of the field of antibiotics, spoke strongly against Darwin’s theory. He said the theory of evolution was a “very feeble attempt to explain the origin of species based on assumptions so flimsy that it can hardly be called a theory.” He referred to evolution as a “hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts.” He also said, “These classic evolutionary theories are a gross oversimplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they were swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest.” Chain concluded that he “would rather believe in fairies than to ever believe in such wild speculation of Darwin.”
    https://biblicalsignsintheheadlines.com/2016/03/21/debunking-evolution-challenging-the-lie-that-challenges-god/

    etc.. etc..

  8. 8
    vividbleau says:

    “Because this movement is given undue science creds, there are many implications for society: one is legal protection for biological men to be allowed access to women’s places – traumatizing women; medical procedures and treatments that pose unusual risk for minors; and the introduction of a politicized curricula to very young people.”

    The movement you speak of will do great harm to women, so much for title |X and other areas as well. For instance a few weeks ago I read about a list of the top 50 women for a certain category which escapes me at the moment but on that list was a trans female and what immediately came to my mind was that an actual women got put off that list. None of this is going to be good for women’s rights and equality.

    Vivid

  9. 9
    vividbleau says:

    “The concept of gender, in the modern sense, is a recent invention in human history.[14] The ancient world had no basis of understanding gender as it has been understood in the humanities and social sciences for the past few decades.[14] The term gender had been associated with grammar for most of history and only started to move towards it being a malleable cultural construct in the 1950s and 1960s.[15]” Wiki

    This is why we cannot bow the knee to the lefts hijacking the language.

    Vivid

  10. 10

    Bornagain77 you bring up some excellent arguments. As I read Bacon’s discourse on the Idols of the Mind, I see many of your points. You state that Darwinism is adrift in a sea of fantasy, and I would have to agree. Bacon said of the idols of the cave:

    “The steady and acute mind can fix its contemplations and dwell and fasten on the subtlest distinctions; the lofty and discursive mind (Darwin adherents) recognizes and puts together the finest and most general resemblances,” parenthetical note is mine.

    All of that to point out that the sweeping generalizations made by Darwinism – that is of common descent, and descent with modification stems from the lofty and discursive mind. Yes, it is of interest that chimpanzees engage in gang murders resembling human behavior (Franz deWaal), and that insects participate in sexual coercion – rape, (Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer) which provide generally speaking very good arguments for common descent (I bought this). But, when we consider HOW these behavioral neurological pathways had their origin in the first place, the arguments break down. I ached for someone to explain how evolution could have forged these pathways – as a molecular biology major, having studied molecular genetics, how did these behaviors evolve? The father of the scientific method would stand and indict Darwinism today because there is NO explanation, just a bowing down to the Idols of the Tribe, Cave, Marketplace, and Theater. I plan to address all of these and how they apply to my beloved Darwin 🙂 in an upcoming post.

    Thank you for your thoughtful and well-argued post!

  11. 11

    Vivid, I never knew this history – thank you for the enlightenment and advancement of knowledge. Sir Francis would be very proud of you! 🙂

    And yes, we cannot bow the knee to absurdity, absolutely absurdity. I marvel at the traction the transgender movement has when it has no basis in logic, reason, or science. It is nearly cult-like. People are terrified to address it on the basis of its absurdity!

  12. 12
    Ed George says:

    Emily, welcome to UD.

    I have a question for you, BA77 and VB. If science developed a vaccine that would prevent same sex attraction and “gender dysphoria”, would you advocate for its use?

  13. 13
    vividbleau says:

    EG
    I would advocate that people should be free to make their own choices on the matter.

    Now would you like to discuss the points by Emily BA or myself or is there another irrelevant rabbit trail you would like to go down?

    Vivid

  14. 14
    bornagain77 says:

    Ed George, instead of musing about imaginary scenarios, perhaps you can tell me, as an atheistic materialist, what your basis of reality is in the first place.

    As already mentioned in post 7, “Darwinists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to”.

    In what should be needless to say, it is pointless to debate someone who is delusional. So again, what is your basis of reality?

  15. 15
    Ed George says:

    VB

    I would advocate that people should be free to make their own choices on the matter.

    But we put pressure on parents to vaccinate their kids against polio, smallpox, measles, etc. If homosexuality and transgenderism are the threats to them that I have read that they are here (risk to their immortal soul), surely parents should be equally pressured to give their kids these vaccines.

  16. 16
    ET says:

    But we put pressure on parents to vaccinate their kids against polio, smallpox, measles, etc.

    They are CONTAGIOUS diseases.

    If homosexuality and transgenderism are the threats to them that I have read that they are here (risk to their immortal soul), surely parents should be equally pressured to give their kids these vaccines.

    How desperate for attention do you have to be to conflate contagious diseases with personal feelings in an effort to score internet troll points?

    Hopefully someday someone will come up with a vaccine to fix your stupidity, Acartia. I know that you will reject it but their may be hope for anything you may have spawned.

  17. 17
    bornagain77 says:

    Too funny, on a post that highlights the fact that Darwinists cling to “wild imagination”, Ed George tries to drag the thread off topic with, you guessed it, a hypothetical scenario based in his wild imagination.

  18. 18
    vividbleau says:

    EG
    Honestly some of the nonsense you put forth is astonishing to behold.
    So you being the moralizing, pontificating champion of woman’s rights
    would you like to address my points in 8 or my post in 9?

    Vivid

  19. 19

    Hi Ed George:
    Thank you for your comments, here. I’m not certain how they advance any argument in one way or another, but at least they are provocative enough to generate conversation.

    I am curious Mr. George, where you have read in either the article or the comments section that we are stating transgenderism or homosexuality poses any risk to one’s mortal soul. It appears you are being presumptuous.

    The thesis of the article is that the debate driving transgenderism is not one rooted in “science,” as Francis Bacon described it. It appears that whenever folks debate the transgender movement on this grounds, they are branded as being religious zealots, or transgenderphobics.

    When a movement generates changes in public policy or medical practice, it is perfectly fair to take that movement to task and question whether the movement’s arguments or articles of faith are founded on solid principles.

    This view of debating the merits of transgenderism’s claims is not Christian radicalism, but acting responsibility.

  20. 20
    Ed George says:

    Emily

    I am curious Mr. George, where you have read in either the article or the comments section that we are stating transgenderism or homosexuality poses any risk to one’s mortal soul. It appear you are being presumptuous.

    You are correct. But according to many of the people at UD, they are a threat to the immortal soul, and a threat to civilization.

    For example, it has frequently been raised here that there is a threat to women of allowing transgendered men to use the women’s washroom. In spite of the fact that this has been occurring for decades with close to zero incidents against women. However, the number of transvestites and transsexuals beaten up because they have to use the men’s washroom are numerous.

    I have frequently travelled to Asian countries and it is not unusual to be standing at a urinal and have a female cleaning staff mop the floor around my feet. The problem is with our own hang ups and prejudices, not with gender.

    At present I am sitting in my basement watching Rocky Horror Picture show. This reminded me that the father/daughter dance at her recent wedding (Jewish) was to Sweet Transvestite from this movie. It may have been a bit unorthodox but it had meaning to me and my daughter. But I am sure that there are many here who would think it completely inappropriate. It was appropriate to us because we watched this movie together when she was in her early teens.

  21. 21
    Ed George says:

    VB

    So you being the moralizing, pontificating champion of woman’s rights
    would you like to address my points in 8 or my post in 9?

    Given that the US has yet to ratify the equal rights amendment, granting women equal rights under the law to men, I don’t think I will. You can’t play high and mighty on women’s rights when your government has not yet acknowledged them.

  22. 22
    vividbleau says:

    “I don’t think I will“
    What a surprise LOL. So we can add this to other reasons why you refuse to answer questions you listed a few weeks back heh, heh.

    “You can’t play high and mighty on women’s rights when your government has not yet acknowledged them.”

    Self righteous moralizes like yourself never do like their hypocrisy to be exposed I get it, Nor am I playing high and mighty you are the one that spews your constant moralizing over woman’s rights not me. I have made an observation your reaction speaks volumes.

    Vivid

  23. 23
    Ed George says:

    VB@22, one question. Why doesn’t the US guarantee equal rights for women? Until you can answer that one, any argument against something by raising women’s rights simply carries no weight.

  24. 24

    Mr. George:

    Thank you for sharing the incident at your daughter’s wedding regarding the father-daughter dance. I get how that would be a sweet moment to share, given your history with the movie.

    I do not think it a wise thing allowing biological men to shower and undress with biological women. I get your comment regarding Asian culture, wherein women clean men’s bathrooms with men present -but the women performing the cleaning service more than likely received training which enabled them to not be bothered at the site of partially naked men. I guess the context in which they are seeing the partially naked men is rather innocuous.

    As a woman using a public bathroom or shower, I would not be keen with a man present, having access to the same space. I would neither appreciate this for any daughter of mine. I think there is some wisdom keeping the gender’s bathroom and shower spaces separate – this is not a line that is wisely crossed.

    I grow quite concerned with the transgender movement because we are passing laws criminalizing people who on account of religious conscious cannot serve this community (such as the Christian baker who was happy to sell cupcakes to the homosexual couple, but NOT bake their wedding cake). If I were to walk into a muslim establishment and have the owner refuse to serve me because I am a woman (as an example) I would NOT contact an attorney and sue this business owner; the man has the right to do this. I would more than likely comment about this on social media, but not use government power or authority to demand services from him. Yet, how many homosexuals and transgenders are targeting and suing Christian-owned businesses? I wonder if the homosexuals and transgenders are similarly targeting muslim-owned businesses?

    Along yet another front, the rush to administer puberty-blocking medications to young kids to hold off puberty until they figure out their gender is simply not a good idea – nor are surgical interventions. It is my understanding in some states that parents have little to no say once their 16 1/2 year old child decides they want to have corrective treatment for their gender dysphoria. Really? Parents have no say in this?

    This movement has a lot of power, yet the power is not due excellent rhetorical arguments, sound logic, or good science. In this regard it is a superb example of an Idol of the Marketplace as Francis Bacon characterized them. It has a lot of power because people are too intimidated to dissent. Perhaps you read the article from the BBC and UK Telegraph concerning the scores of psychologists resigning from a transgender clinic because they felt pressured to refer children for treatment of gender dysphoria out of fear of being brandished as transphobic. I have provided the url below:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/12/12/childrens-transgender-clinic-hit-35-resignations-three-years/

    These factors simply do not add up as good science supporting this movement – such as was the thesis of the article.

    Please do tell me your thoughts on Darwinism, and thank you for your interest in the post.

  25. 25

    Welcome to UD Emily Morales. Thank you for joining in.

  26. 26
    kairosfocus says:

    Emily Morales, welcome; food for thought. I suggest, that gender has become ambiguous, with one sense being sex and another being one’s sex-linked perception, thence latterly a psycho-social construct with up to 50+ or 112 or 212 and growing varieties. Then, they are coming for sex to corrupt that language, too. In short, 1984 newspeak games. KF

  27. 27
    kairosfocus says:

    EG, core rights are not created by government, they are only acknowledged or suppressed. In the case of the US, the acknowledgement of the rights of all of us start with the charter of that nation, its Declaration of Independence. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Where, governments are instituted to uphold justice, by due balance of rights, freedoms and duties. “Men” of course linguistically includes both sexes [even as goose embraces gander], the challenge has been to reform government to duly sustain justice. However, there are reasonable differences between men and women that are to be respected and protected. The undermining of recognition of that balance is a part of the descent into barbarity that is now threatening to engulf our civilisation. KF

  28. 28
    kairosfocus says:

    Sev,

    moral judgements are inevitable and inescapable, starting with the first duties and principles of reason. For, we are duty-bound to truth, right reason, prudence [so, warrant], sound conscience [our moral candle within], fairness and justice [including neighbour-love], etc.

    The issue is not that moral judgements are taught in scripture and by the — somehow, “suspect” — Christian and Jewish/Hebraic religious tradition that shaped our civilisation, it is that you reject the particular ones you don’t like.

    Tell, us, pray thee, what frame of the world you have for responsible rational freedom that rises above might and/or manipulation make ‘right’/ ‘rights’ /’justice’/ ‘truth’/ ‘warrant’/ ‘knowledge’/ ‘logic’ etc. Indeed, tell us what you have that founds a rational, responsible, minded, significantly free, morally governed creature such as we manifestly are: __________ .

    And if you deny that we are such, how do you ground your own reasoning and our duty to attend seriously, beyond GIGO-limited, dubious computational substrates?

    Where, indeed, you cannot even empirically, observationally ground how blind chance and/or mechanical necessity creates functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information [FSCO/I] beyond 500 – 1,000 bits.

    So, you cannot empirically account for the algorithmic, digitally coded complex string data structures physically instantiated through D/RNA in the living cell on such blind chance and necessity, a manifestation of LANGUAGE in action in the heart of life. Where, language is as strong a sign of intelligent action as there is.

    Where, further, we find these cells in a cosmos fine tuned in many ways that set a base for C-Chemistry, Aqueous medium cell based life, on terrestrial planets in galactic habitable zones. Again, signs pointing to intelligent design, here of the cosmos that is fitted for and hosts cell based life.

    Yet further, we find ourselves as minded, morally governed creatures in such a world, crying out for a reality root adequate to ground that moral government.

    We are looking for the awesomely powerful, inherently good and utterly wise. A figure familiar from the civilisation-shaping tradition you would dismiss.

    KF

  29. 29
    bornagain77 says:

    In Emily Morales’s research on Francis Bacon she notes that,,,, “It was the rather low regard for the fallen human mind, besieged as it were by sin, that drove Francis Bacon, the “Father” of the Scientific Method, to formulate a new epistemology”,,,

    Why Francis Bacon instituted the scientific method: (and how the lgbtq movement has steered ideal baconian science off the rails.)
    Bacon’s “Enchanted Glass” – December 2019
    Excerpt: It was the rather low regard for the fallen human mind, besieged as it were by sin, that drove Francis Bacon, the “Father” of the Scientific Method, to formulate a new epistemology in his Great Instauration. In this brilliant man of faith’s view, the Adamic fall left an indelible mark on the human intellect, such that in its total depravity and persistent infirmity it could not be trusted to generate knowledge that was in any way free from bias, wrong presuppositions, or contradictions.,,,
    Recognizing then, the limitations of the human mind for revealing truth by mere logic and deductive reasoning, Bacon posited an altogether different means for knowledge acquisition: experimentation3—repeated experimentation—,,,
    https://salvomag.com/post/bacons-enchanted-glass

    And in her very first article on UD, Emily Morales goes on to note that Darwinists, today and even since its inception, have blatantly ignored Bacon’s method of “repeated experimentation”

    Darwin, in his day was excoriated by Adam Sedgewick (his mentor of the past) for abandoning the tram-road of inductive thinking (Baconian methodology) in favor of embracing the methodologies associated with deductive reasoning carried out by the likes of Aristotle.
    Sedgewick was not alone in his criticism of Darwin. Louis Agassiz, at Harvard similarly rebuked Darwin for a thesis having no support in the known fossil record (refer to Stephen Meyer’s book Darwin’s Doubt). Note that neither of these men pushed back against Darwin because they were creationists – it was rather that Darwin drew some conclusions on the diversity of life and origin of species that were presumptuous to say the least. As it turns out, Bacon addressed the dangers of this manner of “logic” and “reasoning,” at length, warning us of its ability to stifle scientific inquiry two hundred and thirty years before Darwin’s published work.
    Bacon today, would not be impressed with where the brave new world of science is heading. Rather than holding on to those facts that are the fruit of repeated experimentation or steadied observation, society is clinging to fallacies that are oftentimes the fruit of a past college professor’s wild imagination.

    In short, Emily Morales is pointing out the fact, (a fact that has become all too obvious for UD regulars), that Darwinian evolution fails to qualify as a science since it has ignored the criteria of repeated experimentation as was championed by Bacon.

    There simply is no substantiating evidence that Darwinists can point to so as to establish the validity of their theory

    Scant search for the Maker – 2001
    Excerpt: But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms.
    – Alan H. Linton – emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol.
    http://www.timeshighereducatio.....ode=159282

    Darwin vs. Microbes (Where’s the substantiating evidence for Darwinian evolution?) – video
    https://youtu.be/ntxc4X9Zt-I

    In short, Darwinian evolution does not even qualify as a empirical science in the first place since Darwinists have basically completely ignored the criteria of repeated experimentation.

    Francis Bacon, besides his emphasis on the scientific method, also stated that the ‘fruits produced’,,, “are the sureties and vouchers, as it were, for the truth of philosophy”

    “Of all signs there is none more certain or worthy than that of the fruits produced: for the fruits and effects are the sureties and vouchers, as it were, for the truth of philosophy”
    Francis Bacon – widely regarded as the founder of the scientific method,, a devout Anglican Christian
    https://books.google.com/books?id=xlPFDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17#v=onepage&q&f=false

    And yet there are no ‘fruits produced’ by Darwinian evolution, as Jerry Coyne himself admitted,

    “Truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of ‘like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.”
    Jerry Coyne, “Selling Darwin: Does it matter whether evolution has any commercial applications?,” reviewing The Evolving World: Evolution in Everyday Life by David P. Mindell, in Nature, 442:983-984 (August 31, 2006).

    Here are some quotes to further drive the point home that Darwinian evolution is useless as a fruitful heuristic in science,

    “Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming’s discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.
    I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.
    Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology.”
    Philip S. Skell – (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. – Why Do We Invoke Darwin? – 2005

    “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”
    Marc Kirschner, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005

    “While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.”
    A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to “Evolutionary Processes” – (2000).

    In fact, instead of fostering discovery, it can be forcefully argued that Darwinian evolution has greatly hindered scientific discovery, and has also led to much medical malpractice, by falsely predicting both junk DNA and vestigial organs.

    And as if that was not bad enough, Darwinian evolution, far from being ‘fruitful’ for man, has had unimaginably horrid consequences for man. Hundreds of millions of people lost their lives last century due to socialistic ideology that was more or less directly based on Darwinian ideology:

    Richard Weikart has thoroughly documented how Darwinian ideology was foundational to the Nazis’ racism:

    From Darwin to Hitler – lecture video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_5EwYpLD6A
    In his book, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany (2004), Richard Weikart explains the revolutionary impact Darwinism had on ethics and morality. Darwinism played a key role in the rise not only of eugenics (a movement wanting to control human reproduction to improve the human species), but also on euthanasia, infanticide, abortion, and racial extermination. This was especially important in Germany, since Hitler built his view of ethics on Darwinian principles.

    As Adolph Hitler himself stated,

    “The law of selection exists in the world, and the stronger and healthier has received from nature the right to live. Woe to anyone who is weak, who does not stand his ground! He may not expect help from anyone.”
    – Adolf Hitler

    Besides directly undermining Hitler’s, (and the overall German society’s), innate sense of objective morality, Darwinism also directly undermined Stalin and Mao’s innate sense of objective morality,

    The Darwinian Foundation of Communism by Dr. Jerry Bergman
    Summary
    In the minds of Hitler, Stalin and Mao, treating people as animals was not wrong because they believed that Darwin had ‘proved’ humans were not God’s creation, but instead descended from some simple, one-cell organism. All three men believed it was morally proper to eliminate the less fit or ‘herd them like cattle into boxcars bound for concentration camps and gulags’ if it achieved the goal of their Darwinist philosophy.
    https://answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/racism/the-darwinian-foundation-of-communism/

    Karl Marx was also deeply influenced by Darwin:

    Darwin on Marx – by Richard William Nelson | Apr 18, 2010
    Excerpt: Marx and Engels immediately recognized the significance of Darwin’s theory. Within weeks of the publication of The Origin of Species in November 1859, Engels wrote to Marx –
    “Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done…. One does, of course, have to put up with the crude English method.”
    Marx wrote back to Engels on December 19, 1860 –
    “This is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view.”
    The Origin of Species became the natural cause basis for Marx’s emerging class struggle movement. In a letter to comrade Ferdinand Lassalle, on January 16, 1861, Marx wrote –
    “Darwin’s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history.”
    Marx inscribed “sincere admirer” in Darwin’s copy of Marx’s first volume of Das Kapital in 1867. The importance of the theory of evolution for Communism was critical. In Das Kapital, Marx wrote –
    “Darwin has interested us in the history of Nature’s Technology, i.e., in the formation of the organs of plants and animals, which organs serve as instruments of production for sustaining life. Does not the history of the productive organs of man, of organs that are the material basis of all social organisation, deserve equal attention?”
    To acknowledge Darwin’s influence, Marx asked to dedicate Das Kapital to Darwin.
    https://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2010/04/darwin-on-marx/

    In fact, Lenin even kept a little statue of an ape staring at a human skull on his desk. The ape was sitting on a pile of books which included Darwin’s book, “Origin”.

    “V.I. Lenin, creator of the Soviet totalitarian state, kept a little statue on his desk—an ape sitting on a pile of books including mine [The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle of Life], gazing at a human skull. And Mao Zedong, butcher of the tens of millions of his own countrymen, who regarded the German ‘Darwinismus’ writings as the foundation of Chinese ‘scientific socialism.’ This disciple mandated my works as reading material for the indoctrination phase of his lethal Great Leap Forward.” Nickell John Romjue, I, Charles Darwin, p. 45
    https://thunderontheright.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/hitler-lenin-stalin-mao-and-darwin/

    Stalin likewise, while at ecclesiastical school of all places, was also heavily influenced by Darwinism,

    Stalin’s Brutal Faith
    Excerpt: At a very early age, while still a pupil in the ecclesiastical school, Comrade Stalin developed a critical mind and revolutionary sentiments. He began to read Darwin and became an atheist.
    G. Glurdjidze, a boyhood friend of Stalin’s, relates:
    “I began to speak of God, Joseph heard me out, and after a moment’s silence, said:
    “‘You know, they are fooling us, there is no God. . . .’
    “I was astonished at these words, I had never heard anything like it before.
    “‘How can you say such things, Soso?’ I exclaimed.
    “‘I’ll lend you a book to read; it will show you that the world and all living things are quite different from what you imagine, and all this talk about God is sheer nonsense,’ Joseph said.
    “‘What book is that?’ I enquired.
    “‘Darwin. You must read it,’ Joseph impressed on me” 1
    1 E. Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing house, 1940), pp. 8-12. ,,,
    per – stalins-brutal-faith/

    Even Chairman Mao was deeply influenced by Darwinian ‘morality’:

    Darwin’s impact—the bloodstained legacy of evolution
    Excerpt: Chairman Mao is known to have regarded Darwin and his disciple Huxley as his two favourite authors.
    – per creation dot com

    Darwin and Mao: The Influence of Evolutionary Thought on Modern China – 2/13/2013
    https://nonnobis.weebly.com/blog/darwin-and-mao-the-influence-of-evolutionary-thought-on-modern-china

    Thus by Bacon’s criteria of ‘fruits produced’, as far as science is concerned, Darwinian evolution has produced ZERO fruit that has been useful for man. Moreover, when Darwinian evolution has had a guiding influence on society at large, the effects have been far from fruitful, but have instead been catastrophically bad for man.

    In a sane world, Darwinian evolution should rightly be vilified as a false belief system, even as a false religion, instead of constantly being falsely promulgated as a established science by Darwinists:

    Matthew 7:15-20
    15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

  30. 30
    Barry Arrington says:

    Emily, welcome to UD.

  31. 31
    ET says:

    Acartia Eddie clearly doesn’t understand that WOMEN are opposed to the equal rights amendment. WOMEN have put up the biggest fights against it. See Phyllis Schlafly

  32. 32
    Ed George says:

    KF

    EG, core rights are not created by government, they are only acknowledged or suppressed.

    I understand that this is your opinion. However, it does not correspond with the entire path of human history. Human rights have changed dramatically over time and between societies. What evidence is there that the rights that we currently have are the “true” ones? What is wrong with societies changing and expanding on these rights?

    In the case of the US, the acknowledgement of the rights of all of us start with the charter of that nation, its Declaration of Independence.

    A document that holds no weight in law. The constitution and its amendments are the documents that have power. And they do not provide equal rights for women. If the Equal Rights Amendment were ever to be passed, these rights would be given to women.

    However, there are reasonable differences between men and women that are to be respected and protected. The undermining of recognition of that balance is a part of the descent into barbarity that is now threatening to engulf our civilisation. KF

    Yes, there are biological differences between men and women. How does this apply to granting women equal rights?

  33. 33
    ET says:

    Acartia Eddie:

    Yes, there are biological differences between men and women. How does this apply to granting women equal rights?

    Ask the women who have fought against having equal rights. Or remain a willfully ignorant troll. I know which you will choose.

  34. 34
    bornagain77 says:

    Ed George, don’t you find it the least bit strange that you never present any actual scientific evidence that your Darwinian worldview can plausibly be true, but that you almost always resort to distorted moral arguments. i.e. “The world would be so much better is we all adopted my morality instead of God’s morality”.

    Seems to me that you have put the cart way before the horse. Frankly I don’t see how you can stand such a disconnect in logic.

    But anyways, it is also interesting to note that the ‘first sin’ of man in the Garden of Eden is held to be “knowing good and evil”, i.e. and/or man thinking that he knows morality better than God knows morality. And here you sit E.G., all these years later, proving the very point made in the first part of Genesis all those years ago.

    Which just goes to show, the more things change the more they stay the same!

  35. 35
    Silver Asiatic says:

    ET

    Ask the women who have fought against having equal rights.

    Many have done this because equality with men will strip away protections and privileges that are rightly given to women in a sane and civilized society.

  36. 36
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Welcome, Emily Morales. Great to have you here and I’ve enjoyed your commentary.

    As a woman using a public bathroom or shower, I would not be keen with a man present, having access to the same space. I would neither appreciate this for any daughter of mine.

    It’s difficult to add much to this, except to repeat the most obvious truths.
    A real man, a gentleman and a man of wisdom (however slight), knows this, and more.
    Men who push for indiscriminate “equality” for women are barbaric and destructive. It’s Marxist revolution at the social, cultural and personal level. Male and female are abolished as oppressive categories.
    They can justify and argue for anything. There can be no real limits – evolution knows no limits.
    That’s Darwinist atheistic materialism. It destroys and cannot build.

  37. 37
    Silver Asiatic says:

    BA77

    Great quotes, as always.

    Karl Marx: “Darwin’s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history.”

    Marx’s class warfare of worker against employer has become now the warfare against truth, order, human nature, being, rationality and moral norms. Those things are the new oppressors.
    Darwin attempted to destroy teleology and design. Darwin saw God as the oppressor.
    It’s all a part of the same revolution.

  38. 38
    Ed George says:

    SA

    Many have done this because equality with men will strip away protections and privileges that are rightly given to women in a sane and civilized society.

    To the best of my knowledge jurisdictions that have enshrined equality for women in their laws have not resulted in stripping away any protections and privileges that they previously had. Do you have any concrete examples where this has happened?

  39. 39
    Silver Asiatic says:

    EG

    To the best of my knowledge jurisdictions that have enshrined equality for women in their laws have not resulted in stripping away any protections and privileges that they previously had. Do you have any concrete examples where this has happened?

    Did you read Emily Morales’ comment (that I quoted)?

    How about unisex public locker-room/showers?

  40. 40
    ET says:

    Acartia Eddie:

    To the best of my knowledge jurisdictions that have enshrined equality for women in their laws have not resulted in stripping away any protections and privileges that they previously had.

    Umm, those jurisdictions would be the “sane and civilized society” SA mentioned.

  41. 41
    Ed George says:

    SA

    Did you read Emily Morales’ comment (that I quoted)?

    Yes. But what does that relate to enacting the ERA?

  42. 42
    ET says:

    The majority of States have ratified the ERA. The States that have not ratified it do so because of pressure from women.

  43. 43
    Silver Asiatic says:

    EG

    But what does that relate to enacting the ERA?

    Why do you think millions of women, Phyllis Shlafly and others, were opposed to it?

  44. 44
    vividbleau says:

    To all
    Emily’s points that transgenderism is an idol of the market place, is not scientific, and is harmful to women. Additionally it has been pointed out that it is discriminatory to biological women and transgenderism is not going to be good for woman’s rights and equality. What has been the response by EG and Sev.

    1) That Emily is passing moral judgements which can no where be found in what she wrote and not pertinent to the claims put forth.
    2) “Its a risk to ones immortal soul” Which is again is not stated and not pertinent to the topic.
    3) “Vaccines” Which again has nothing to do with the topic.
    4) ERA which again has nothing to do with the topic.

    Folks see a pattern here? EG is doing nothing but throwing out chaff while he refuses to confront the issues put on the table.

    Vivid

  45. 45
    Ed George says:

    VB

    Folks see a pattern here? EG is doing nothing but throwing out chaff while he refuses to confront the issues put on the table.

    OK. Let’s stick to facts. Transgendered have almost zero incidents of assaulting women in women’s bathrooms, which they have been using (illegally) for decades. There have been hundreds of incidents of transexuals being assaulted while using men’s bathrooms. I dare say that Emily has shared a bathroom with a transgendered male and never even known about it. And that you have shared a bathroom with a transgendered female and never known.

  46. 46
    vividbleau says:

    “OK. Let’s stick to facts. Transgendered have almost zero incidents of assaulting women in women’s bathrooms, which they have been using (illegally) for decades.”

    More chaff, Emily has not brought up the issue of assault.

    Vivid

  47. 47
    Silver Asiatic says:

    VB

    it is discriminatory to biological women

    That seems irrefutable.

  48. 48
    ET says:

    The facts are that in today’s society anyone can claim to be whatever gender they want. Apparently, there isn’t any scientific test to make that determination. Just don’t do that with race… 🙄

  49. 49
    Ed George says:

    VB

    More chaff, Emily has not brought up the issue of assault.

    No. All she has brought up is that she would feel uncomfortable. The last time I looked, we don’t have a right to not feel uncomfortable. But we do have a right not to be put at risk. What risk does Emily experience by a transgendered man sitting in the bathroom stall next to her? Conversely, what risk does a transgender male face going into a men’s bathroom?

    As to risk:

    Discussions about school policy involving transgender students often focus on hypothetical concerns that respecting students’ gender identity, and allowing them to use facilities in accordance with their gender identity, will violate the privacy or “comfort” of other students, and lead to the abolition of gender-segregated facilities such as restrooms and locker rooms altogether. Other commonly voiced concerns include the idea that transgender students might just be “confused,” likely to change their minds about their gender identity, or falsely claiming to be transgender for some nefarious purpose. We have addressed–and in some cases personally grappled with–many of the same concerns. But in our experience, none of those concerns have materialized in the form of actual problems in our schools. We have not experienced problems with policies allowing transgender students to access bathrooms or locker rooms in accordance with their gender identity. Nor have we experienced transgender students or any other students attempting to be dishonest or break the rules. To the contrary, our transgender students simply want to be safe while using school facilities.

    Further to this:

    “States across the country have introduced harmful legislation or initiatives that seek to repeal non-discrimination protections or restrict transgender people’s access to gender-specific facilities like restrooms. Those who are pushing these proposals have claimed that these proposals are necessary for public safety and to prevent sexual violence against women and children. As rape crisis centers, shelters, and other service providers who work each and every day to meet the needs of all survivors and reduce sexual assault and domestic violence throughout society, we speak from experience and expertise when we state that these claims are false.

    “Nondiscrimination laws do not allow men to go into women’s restrooms—period. The claim that allowing transgender people to use the facilities that match the gender they live every day allows men into women’s bathrooms or women into men’s is based either on a flawed understanding of what it means to be transgender or a misrepresentation of the law.”

    “As advocates committed to ending sexual assault and domestic violence of every kind, we will never support any law or policy that could put anyone at greater risk for assault or harassment. That is why we are able to strongly support transgender- inclusive nondiscrimination protections—and why we oppose any law that would jeopardize the safety of transgender people by forcing them into restrooms that do not align with the gender they live every day.”

    And this from the law inforcement community:

    We all care about safety and privacy in restrooms. Which is why it’s important to remember that nondiscrimination laws protecting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people have been around for a long time. In fact, 18 states and over 200 cities across the country have passed and successfully implemented laws that protect lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people from discrimination in public accommodations–and there’s been no increase in public safety incidents in restrooms in any of these cities or states.

    However, those who oppose protecting gay and transgender people from discrimination falsely claim that these laws put the safety of women and children at risk — they say these laws can be abused by predators to go into women’s facilities. However, the claims have no basis in fact.

    About half of the U.S. population lives in a city or state that has a transgender-inclusive nondiscrimination law. Here are what police officials from places with these laws say about whether or not these laws threaten public safety:

    Spokespeople from the Des Moines, Albuquerque, Baltimore San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York city police departments said they knew of no problems in facilities relating to California and New York City’s non-discrimination laws – which have all been in place for over a decade.

    The Des Moines (Iowa) Police Department said “We have not seen that.” when asked if they there were any cases of sexual assault related to the state’s non-discrimination statute, passed in 2007.

    The Cambridge (Massachusetts) Police Superintendent said “there have been no incidents of men dressing up as women to commit crimes in female bathrooms and using the city ordinance as a defense.”

    Rehoboth, Delaware Police Chief Keith Banks said, “We’ve had no concerns on this and no complaints have been made, and we have observed none,”concerning Delaware’s non-discrimination law.

    The Minneapolis Police Department said that fears about sexual assault are “not even remotely” a problem, and the notion of men posing as transgender women to enter women’s restrooms to commit sex crimes “sounds a little silly.” Minneapolis was the first city to pass a transgender-inclusive nondiscrimination law over 40 years ago, in 1975.

    The Las Vegas Police Department was asked if they had seen any cases of sexual assault related to the state’s non-discrimination statutes. Their response? “The answer would be no.”

    The Albuquerque Police Department said, “We are unaware of any cases of assault” due to New Mexico’s non-discrimination law, which passed in 2003. 7

    A Portland, Oregon Police Department representative said, “I have never heard of any issues” of assault relating to the state’s non-discrimination statute, which passed in 2007.

    Detective Nicole Monroe, a public information officer with the Baltimore Police Department, said worries about transgender-inclusive policies are “the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.” Baltimore passed its law in 2002 and Maryland passed a state law in 2014.

  50. 50
    bornagain77 says:

    This article is very good for pointing out the insanity inherent in transgender metaphysics:

    Transgender Ideology Is Riddled With Contradictions. Here Are the Big Ones. – Feb 9th, 2018
    Excerpt: On the one hand, transgender activists want the authority of science as they make metaphysical claims, saying that science reveals gender identity to be innate and unchanging. On the other hand, they deny that biology is destiny, insisting that people are free to be who they want to be.
    Which is it? Is our gender identity biologically determined and immutable, or self-created and changeable? If the former, how do we account for people whose gender identity changes over time? Do these people have the wrong sense of gender at some time or other?
    And if gender identity is self-created, why must other people accept it as reality? If we should be free to choose our own gender reality, why can some people impose their idea of reality on others just because they identify as transgender?
    The challenge for the transgender activist is to articulate some conception of truth as the basis for how we understand the common good and how society should be ordered.
    As I document in depth in “When Harry Became Sally,” the claims of transgender activists are confusing because they are philosophically incoherent. Activists rely on contradictory claims as needed to advance their position, but their ideology keeps evolving, so that even allies and LGBT organizations can get left behind as “progress” marches on.
    At the core of the ideology is the radical claim that feelings determine reality. From this idea come extreme demands for society to play along with subjective reality claims. Trans ideologues ignore contrary evidence and competing interests, they disparage alternative practices, and they aim to muffle skeptical voices and shut down any disagreement.
    The movement has to keep patching and shoring up its beliefs, policing the faithful, coercing the heretics, and punishing apostates, because as soon as its furious efforts flag for a moment or someone successfully stands up to it, the whole charade is exposed. That’s what happens when your dogmas are so contrary to obvious, basic, everyday truths.
    A transgender future is not the “right side of history,” yet activists have convinced the most powerful sectors of our society to acquiesce to their demands. While the claims they make are manifestly false, it will take real work to prevent the spread of these harmful ideas.
    https://www.heritage.org/gender/commentary/transgender-ideology-riddled-contradictions-here-are-the-big-ones

  51. 51
    vividbleau says:

    “No. All she has brought up is that she would feel uncomfortable. The last time I looked, we don’t have a right to not feel uncomfortable. But we do have a right not to be put at risk. What risk does Emily experience by a transgendered man sitting in the bathroom stall next to her? Conversely, “

    Gotta love these leftist hypocrites, it so easy to expose them. So Ed ,a man, the so called champion of women’s rights, is now “mansplaining” to a woman, Love it.

    Vivid

  52. 52
    Ed George says:

    VB

    Gotta love these leftist hypocrites, it so easy to expose them. So Ed ,a man, the so called champion of women’s rights, is now “mansplaining” to a woman, Love it.

    Got love the turnabout here. Rather than address the very real concerns I referenced, VB decides to attack the fact that I have a penis. You are descending into ET levels of deception. You are better than that.

  53. 53
    vividbleau says:

    “Got love the turnabout here. Rather than address the very real concerns I referenced, VB decides to attack the fact that I have a penis“

    EG “ Pot, kettle black” You avoid answering the questions of others, indeed have a long list of excuses why, and now whine that your concerns are not addressed. You have studiously not addressed the issues put forth rather you have brought up vaccines, immortal souls, assaults, etc.

    As to the “mansplaining”, and your guilty of that because you have a penis, well all I can say is “Thems the progressive rules” Your the progressive , you make the rules, live by them.
    Vivid

  54. 54
    bornagain77 says:

    Ed George being true to his transgender ideology states, “VB decides to attack the fact that I have a penis.”
    – sarcasm on-
    You tell him Ed, penises and vaginas don’t matter one bit!!! 🙂 Sex is all in your head VB. You can be a woman one day, a man the next. And society must adjust all social norms to the whims of whatever preference of sex you may have. Quit forcing your fundamentalist notions about biological sex on us. It is rude of you and we enlightened folks feel threatened by you deplorable Walmart shoppers. 🙂
    – sarcasm off –
    Now for the small matter of convincing all those pubescent teenagers that penises and vaginas don’t matter one bit! 🙂 Something tells me that the ‘biological reality’ of teenagers is not going to be nearly as cooperative with Ed’s delusions about biological sex not mattering one bit as he would prefer it to be. 🙂

    Of supplemental note, It seems trans people are being used, in large measure, as puppets by trans activists.

    Most people who suffer from gender dysphoria are not activists, and many of them reject the activists’ claims. Many of them may be regarded as victims of the activists, as I show in my book.

    Many of those who feel distress over their bodily sex know that they aren’t really the opposite sex, and do not wish to “transition.” They wish to receive help in coming to identify with and accept their bodily self. They don’t think their feelings of gender dysphoria define reality.
    https://www.heritage.org/gender/commentary/transgender-ideology-riddled-contradictions-here-are-the-big-ones

  55. 55
    vividbleau says:

    EG
    BA has a point you can for the moment change your gender and you will no longer be a mainsplainer. Then after you finish posting you can change your gender back to being a man, problem solved.

    Vivid

  56. 56
    Ed George says:

    VB

    EG “ Pot, kettle black” You avoid answering the questions of others, indeed have a long list of excuses why, and now whine that your concerns are not addressed.

    Sorry, is this addressing the points I raised at 49? Or are you avoiding them?

  57. 57
    vividbleau says:

    “Sorry, is this addressing the points I raised at 49? Or are you avoiding them?“

    I am avoiding nothing it is you who is doing the avoiding. I have stated my position in number 8 and 44 .Can you point to me where I have brought up the issue of public safety concerns?
    Vivid

  58. 58
    Ed George says:

    VB

    EG “ Pot, kettle black” You avoid answering the questions of others, indeed have a long list of excuses why, and now whine that your concerns are not addressed.

    .
    I don’t respond to ET and UB because they are incapable of discussing without insulting. In short, they are not worth my time. I seldom respond to BA77 because life is too short to read through his scroll ball killing comments, and I don’t respond to loaded questions. Other than that, I don’t respond when I have little interest in the question or when life gets in the way. In short, the same as anyone else.

    I have had discussions with people like you and AaronS1978 because you both have generally proceeded in a civil fashion.

  59. 59
    ET says:

    Acartia Eddie:

    You are descending into ET levels of deception.

    Wow. What a pathetic little loser you are. You are the only loser who engages in deception. You lie, bait-n-switch and quote-mine. You can’t help yourself.

    Are there any scientific tests to confirm transgenderism? No. To date it is ALL feelings. Meaning it is all a mental issue.

  60. 60
    ET says:

    Acartia Eddie:

    I don’t respond to ET and UB because they are incapable of discussing without insulting.

    WRONG. We make astute observations. And you don’t respond to us because we expose you as a cowardly troll. And now more people are seeing you for the insipid troll that you are.

    Thank you

  61. 61
    jawa says:

    Let’s see how the contributions of Emily Morales will affect the below results. Given her evident knowledge and eloquence, I expect an improvement of UD rank relative to the other listed sites.

    BTW, PS is doing so bad that Alexa lost track of their traffic. It’s ironic that PT has so many sites linking in but still has such a poor ranking. The closest to UD is SW (Larry Moran’s blog?), which is more than twice lower in the ranking. TSZ still does poorly.

    Rank: Alexa ranks in global internet traffic and engagement
    Sites: Total number of sites linking in

    Rank Sites
    UD: 656,557 / 649
    SW: 1,401,994 / 474
    PT: 1,909,783 / 1,026
    TSZ: 4,078,278 / 44
    PS: no data / 14

  62. 62
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Vivid

    As to the “mansplaining”, and your guilty of that because you have a penis, well all I can say is “Thems the progressive rules” Your the progressive , you make the rules, live by them.

    Ha ha nice job. It’s all on display here and that’s the first thing that hit me right between the eyes. The progressive man telling women that they just have to deal with it. Hilarious.

  63. 63
    Marfin says:

    Ed George- Do you believe men and women are the same , so that a man in a women changing room ,shower or toilet is the same as a woman in a mans changing room, shower ,or toilet.

  64. 64
    kairosfocus says:

    EG, it is fair comment that you have been far outdistanced by UB in discussion on the subject matter. KF

  65. 65
    kairosfocus says:

    ET, it may be advisable to turn down the rhetorical voltage. KF

  66. 66
    kairosfocus says:

    EG,

    Surely, you jest:

    What risk does Emily experience by a transgendered man sitting in the bathroom stall next to her?

    Obvious, and highly significant given that it is mostly women and girls who are targetted by male sexual predators.

    The human male is the most dangerous predator to walk this planet in the history of life, that is why much of civilisation pivots on taming the sexuality and aggressiveness of boys and young men. Hence, among many other things, codes of gentlemanly conduct. Where, too, deviancy in one aspect of such core civilising codes is a sign that makes other deviations much more likely. So, reasonable profiling and heeding gut feelings of danger are not to be despised.

    Had the security team at the church on Sunday acted promptly on a cluster of warning signs, the horror of two men gunned down by an out of control angry man could have been averted. So, no, I don’t buy the oh that’s prejudice talking point.

    The basic problem is that cultural marxists and allied radicals seek to dis-assemble our civilisation and have hit on an agenda of promoting sexual transgressivity, to ever increasingly bizarre degree.

    Transgenderism is patent psychological disorder dealing with profound breakdown of sense of identity, requiring addressing that root competently. Resorting instead to inviting — onward, compelling by abuse of state power, agit prop and lawfare — surgical mutilation and manipulation of the body by destructive drugs . . . drugs are “poisons in small doses” . . . is a mark of a sick culture on the brink. Celebrating such, is a further sign of a voyage of mutinous folly on the ship of state.

    And yes, I am fully aware that agit prop stunts like accusing of hate speech then resorting to attempts at expulsion from online media empires are common resorts nowadays to stating unwelcome truths such as the just above. Such appeals to the stick do not change the balance on merits.

    Wake up, man!

    KF

  67. 67
    kairosfocus says:

    Back on focus, defining science more objectively:

    science: a branch of knowledge conducted on objective principles involving the systematized observation of and experiment with phenomena, esp. concerned with the material and functions of the physical universe. [Concise Oxford Dictionary, 1990 — and yes, they used the “z” Virginia!]

    scientific method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge [”the body of truth, information and principles acquired by mankind”] involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. [Webster’s 7th Collegiate Dictionary, 1965]

    Thus, my summary on what science is at its best:

    science, at its best, is the unfettered — but ethically and intellectually responsible — progressive, observational evidence-led pursuit of the truth about our world (i.e. an accurate and reliable description and explanation of it), based on:

    a: collecting, recording, indexing, collating and reporting accurate, reliable (and where feasible, repeatable) empirical — real-world, on the ground — observations and measurements,

    b: inference to best current — thus, always provisional — abductive explanation of the observed facts,

    c: thus producing hypotheses, laws, theories and models, using logical-mathematical analysis, intuition and creative, rational imagination [including Einstein’s favourite gedankenexperiment, i.e thought experiments],

    d: continual empirical testing through further experiments, observations and measurement; and,

    e: uncensored but mutually respectful discussion on the merits of fact, alternative assumptions and logic among the informed. (And, especially in wide-ranging areas that cut across traditional dividing lines between fields of study, or on controversial subjects, “the informed” is not to be confused with the eminent members of the guild of scholars and their publicists or popularisers who dominate a particular field at any given time.)

    As a result, science enables us to ever more effectively (albeit provisionally) describe, explain, understand, predict and influence or control objects, phenomena and processes in our world.

    That is what is being tossed away without recognising the implications of politicising science, by the materialist ideologues.

    KF

  68. 68
    kairosfocus says:

    What materialistic ideologues?

    Oh, try here for one Monod in a 1971 interview on his Chance and Necessity:

    [T]he scientific attitude implies what I call the postulate of objectivity—that is to say, the fundamental postulate that there is no plan, that there is no intention in the universe. Now, this is basically incompatible with virtually all the religious or metaphysical systems whatever, all of which try to show that there is some sort of harmony between man and the universe and that man is a product—predictable if not indispensable—of the evolution of the universe.— Jacques Monod [Quoted in John C. Hess, ‘French Nobel Biologist Says World Based On Chance’, New York Times (15 Mar 1971), p. 6. Cited in Herbert Marcuse, Counter-Revolution and Revolt (1972), p. 66.]

    Notice, the telling redefinition of objectivity.

    KF

  69. 69
    john_a_designer says:

    Unfortunately, dishonesty and irrationality has overtaken the marketplace of ideas in the culture at large, not just in the U.S. but most of the civilized world. Ideally the market place of ideas should be based on facts, honesty and reason. Sadly, like many other discussions here at UD the discussion on this thread has been derailed by an interlocutor who, as far as I can see, is not motivated by any kind of good will.

    For example, I am still trying to figure out (after a full year) where Ed George is really coming from and why he is here. (Not that I can’t guess.) Is he motivated by (1) arrogance, anger and dishonesty, or (2) insecurity, or (3) irrationality? Or something else? If it’s #1 I don’t see much point in engaging him any further. If it’s #2 we need to challenge him. If atheism is the only rational alternative why does one need to show up on a Christian site to validate it? As far as #3, judging so far from what he has written that speaks for itself. (I don’t mean that as a compliment.)

    To be fair I know evangelical Christians who engage same kind of fallacious reasoning. For example, there are the so-called KJV only-ists who believe that only the KJV version of the Bible is divinely inspired. They are just as stubborn about admitting the errors in their reasoning. Basically their thinking goes: I believe x therefore x must be true. Many people label that kind of reasoning as fundamentalist. Ironically, it appears to me that that same kind of thinking is reflected among many of those who espouse a non-theistic or non-religious world view.

    Of course, Ed’s motives could it could be a combination of all three of the things I’ve listed above but let’s not get bogged down there.

    All I’m really asking is what are Ed George’s motives for being here? Maybe he can tell us. After all, he should know, shouldn’t he? Why wouldn’t he?

    If someone can’t be honest and transparent about their motives I don’t see how anyone can trust them or why they are here, especially when all they do is obstruct and obfuscate, and waste everyone’s time including their own.

  70. 70

    John_a_Designer, you make some excellent points concerning the marketplace. In the next few days I’ll be posting an article to Salvo concerning this marketplace in particular; false ideas and notions do not merely spread like wildfire on dry grass, but wildfire on dry grass doused with gasoline! We are taking forays into new territory (such as invasive medical procedures on minors, prosecution of Christian-owned businesses, and curriculum overhauls) without considering whether these notions have any merit!

    The transgender movement has such extraordinary power, NOT because the general population is in agreement with it in principle, but because the general population is too terrified to comment on it! Everyone saw what happened to JK Rowling (a past advocate for homosexual marriage) for merely supporting Maya Forrester’s comments concerning the immutability of gender. No one wants the onslaught of insults and profanity that results from speaking out against this community…. wait, not speaking out, but questioning the community’s doctrines. Now if the rabid response of this community to anyone questioning it does not remind anyone of the zealots who defend radicalized religious beliefs, then you have to be blind.

  71. 71
    john_a_designer says:

    Emily,

    The problem we are facing today is that those pushing a social justice or secular-progressive agenda: transgenderism, same sex marriage, identity politics and wokeness etc. start with morally subjectivist or morally relativist assumptions.

    Some years ago, on another website, I had this exchange with an interlocutor who responded to a question in an OP similar to what we’re discussing here. He wrote:

    Here’s an answer to your question… There is nothing “essentially true” about marriage. Marriage is what we agree it is (or what most of us agree it is.)

    There is no “essential truth” about anything.

    I replied:

    It is self-refuting to say there is ”no ‘essential truth’ about anything.” Didn’t you notice that you’re making an essential [indeed universal] truth claim about truth. Furthermore it takes the legs out from under every argument you have been making. Why should I even consider an argument that’s not true?

    This is why I have given up trying to argue with moral subjectivists. They don’t understand the irrationality of their argument. Logic 101 says you can’t prove anything deductively unless you begin with a factually true or self-evidently true premise. Again, the premise there is “no ‘essential truth’ about anything,” is self-refuting, which is basically the argument the subjectivist is making. All the subjectivist has are moral opinions he believes are true for him. However, no-one else is obligated to accept his or her moral opinions. The subjectivist is then left with a “morality” that has no moral obligation. What value is such a moral system? The answer is obvious: zero value.

  72. 72

    So true, John_a_designer, so true. I do have to admit, however, I love arguing and debating with people, and it appears you do as well! At least you are very good at it!

    Post-modernism really is the bane of our century, isn’t it?

  73. 73
    vividbleau says:

    Emily
    “but because the general population is too terrified to comment on it! Everyone saw what happened to JK Rowling (a past advocate for homosexual marriage) for merely supporting Maya Forrester’s comments concerning the immutability of gender. No one wants the onslaught of insults and profanity that results from speaking out against this community…. “

    How about Martina Navratilova of all people being labeled a transphobe for stating the obvious about the effects on women’s sports, she was forced to recant.

    I can speak to first hand experience that people are literally threatened with their jobs if they do not actively assent to this transgender nonsense , that a male can suddenly override biology by thinking they are a female , or a female thinking that they are a male.

    Vivid

  74. 74
    kairosfocus says:

    We are here seeing the progress of a totalitarian ideology that by being part of a cultural marxist alliance, is part of the attempt to destabilise and radically reshape our civilisation, with particular reference to extreme hostility to the Christian faith and any linked ethical and intellectual deposit. Those involved in the stampede don’t see that it heads over the edge of a cliff. Indeed, I have often seen them mock such warnings here at UD. What they say at their base sites in the penumbra of attack sites targetting UD, is far more explicitly extreme and vicious than anything they do here.

  75. 75
    Silver Asiatic says:

    JAD

    If atheism is the only rational alternative why does one need to show up on a Christian site to validate it?

    It’s a good question and I understand what you’re getting at.
    But a couple of things also: EG says he is an agnostic, not atheist.
    And as for UD, I think it is a Christian site, sort of? But the DI is not really, or maybe it is. Klinghoffer is Jewish. Berlinski is an atheistic-Jew.
    By habit or just convention we tend to equate ID to Christian thought, but ID is religion-neutral and the findings of ID are scientific, so therefore are compatible with any religion or even atheism.
    ID is compatible with leftist politics also, although it’s rare to find that combination in practice.

    Edit: another word on EG, I think there’s some controversy about his identity, so there’s another issue to consider.

  76. 76

    .
    Ed at #58,

    You don’t refuse to engage me because I “insult you”. Everyone following this blog over the past months knows that this claim is little more than an opportunistic deception. The real reason you refuse to engage me is because I can demonstrate through uncontroversial science and history that life requires a multi-referent symbol system, a language structure, and semantic closure in order to exist – and you simply don’t want to deal with empirical observations. And frankly, the only way you could be insulted by me is because I’ve publically demonstrated the fact that you absolutely refuse to engage in the predictions, documented results, and recorded history that contradicts your position and supports ID; also that you came here (quite) openly making untruthful statements about who you are; and finally, that following your own repeated reasoning, a man under certain conditions can literally decide for himself if it is okay to rape a woman, and that under your worldview, it would indeed be okay.

    If things like blind adherence, carrying out nefarious deceptions, and coddling inhumanity are the types of things that insult you, then I suggest you have insulted yourself.

  77. 77
    Ed George says:

    KF

    Obvious, and highly significant given that it is mostly women and girls who are targetted by male sexual predators.

    That is irrelevant to the issue of allowing transgendered to use the bathroom of their identification.

    Discussions about school policy involving transgender students often focus on hypothetical concerns that respecting students’ gender identity, and allowing them to use facilities in accordance with their gender identity, will violate the privacy or “comfort” of other students, and lead to the abolition of gender-segregated facilities such as restrooms and locker rooms altogether. Other commonly voiced concerns include the idea that transgender students might just be “confused,” likely to change their minds about their gender identity, or falsely claiming to be transgender for some nefarious purpose. We have addressed–and in some cases personally grappled with–many of the same concerns. But in our experience, none of those concerns have materialized in the form of actual problems in our schools. We have not experienced problems with policies allowing transgender students to access bathrooms or locker rooms in accordance with their gender identity. Nor have we experienced transgender students or any other students attempting to be dishonest or break the rules. To the contrary, our transgender students simply want to be safe while using school facilities.

  78. 78
    kairosfocus says:

    EG, the problem is central to civilisation, not just to the topic in view. Women are very aware that they are potential prey targets of the most dangerous predator in the history of life on Earth, the human male. That shapes family structures, child nurture, creation of a public space in which women can freely move about (or, not), and much more. It is clear that many would be activists and enablers don’t understand what they would trifle with, and are unwilling to hear another side to the story. In the immediate context of discussion, women are vulnerable in the context being discussed and it is reasonable and responsible that they have a protected, safe and private space. The alternative, is implicit destruction of the public space, through systematically rendering it dangerous for women. Those are the matches being played with, whether or not you or those you wish to quote are willing to admit it. KF

    PS: And the attempted turnabout accusation, fails. Fails as destructive agit prop and fails as refusing to address a serious psychological breakdown of personal identity leading to destructive reality disconnect as what it is. But then, this is simply yet another slide down the slope heading over the cliff.

  79. 79
    Ed George says:

    KF

    EG, the problem is central to civilisation, not just to the topic in view. Women are very aware that they are potential prey targets of the most dangerous predator in the history of life on Earth, the human male.

    Your hyperbole is amusing, but it has no basis in fact. The number of priests abusing young boys is orders of magnitude greater than the number of transexuals abusing women in the bathroom. Should we ban priests? Should we prevent them from talking to children?

    And you are ignoring the fact that transgendered have been using women’s bathrooms for decades.

  80. 80
    kairosfocus says:

    EG, that you try to dismiss so serious a matter as hyperbole shows how disconnected from reality you are on the subject. FYI, basic facts: women are normally smaller, have less reach and significantly less upper body strength than men, with a higher fat:muscle ratio. Skeletally, bones esp. the skull, are significantly more gracile, thus more easily fractured; and more, learn facts about e.g. real infantry tests and strength issues. This is a context in which rape is a recognised major crime against the person that mainly targets women and girls. We can go on and on but this is a family blog and you are now playing the red herring dragged away to strawman caricature soaked in ad homs then set alight to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the issues game. The proper focus for the thread, is that we see science taken captive to ideology. For a relevant case in point, I leave this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osDFJLd5SCs&feature=youtu.be I note, mere saying ‘ent mek it so. KF

  81. 81
    kairosfocus says:

    PS: You are ignoring the significance of the law being a teacher. The shift in burden of safety being contemplated and pushed has serious potential consequences. And, why is it that, so often when you intervene in a thread, you begin to drag it down into all sorts of sexually linked pathologies? Please, enough is enough.

  82. 82
    john_a_designer says:

    Emily,

    So true, John_a_designer, so true. I do have to admit, however, I love arguing and debating with people, and it appears you do as well! At least you are very good at it!

    Actually, I don’t enjoy getting sucked into baseless arguments that lead nowhere. There is big a difference between making logically valid arguments and being argumentative. Some of our regular interlocutors have a “talent” for just being argumentative which only has the purpose of derailing, disrupting or subverting the discussion. For example, you prove anything if you start with a self-refuting premise.

    Unfortunately, too many people on the ID side get sucked into that kind of nonsense.

    As I have said here several times before:

    I have my own personal standard when it comes to interacting with our regular interlocutors. I usually only engage under two conditions:

    First, our interlocutor must be willing to ask and answer honest questions.

    Second, they need make a logically valid argument, which can be stated using succinct fact based premises. Being argumentative is not the same as making a valid argument. Neither is pretension and posturing, obstruction or obfuscation. Reasonable people know how to make reasonable arguments.

    SA @ #75,

    Technically you are right. UD is not a Christian site. My bad.

    As far as who Ed is or what he believes, I don’t care. He strikes me as someone who is very disingenuous… not the type of person I’m interested in engaging with.

  83. 83
    ET says:

    The use of the bathroom of choice was never just about potential physical abuse. Voyeurism is a real thing. And it does leave behind victims. However, the easy solution would be to have multiple single-person bathrooms in place of the two gendered multi-person bathrooms.

  84. 84
    john_a_designer says:

    correction to my comment @ 83.

    The last sentence of my first paragraph should read:

    “For example, you can’t prove anything if you start with a self-refuting premise.”

    KF,

    EG, that you try to dismiss so serious a matter as hyperbole shows how disconnected from reality you are on the subject.

    Why are you trying to reason with Ed, KF? It’s his responsibility to put forth a reasonable argument first. Ed stating his belief or opinion then doubling down on that belief or opinion proves nothing.

    Frankly I think Ed’s sole purpose for being here is to be disruptive and waste everyone’s time.

  85. 85
    Ed George says:

    KF

    EG, that you try to dismiss so serious a matter as hyperbole shows how disconnected from reality you are on the subject. FYI, basic facts: women are normally smaller, have less reach and significantly less upper body strength than men, with a higher fat:muscle ratio.

    I am not ignoring anything. Transgendered have been using women’s bathrooms for decades. And you could count the number of incidents on one hand. All people are asking is to allow them to do this without risking a criminal charge.

    As I mentioned, the proportion of priests molesting little boys is orders of magnitude higher than that of women being accosted by transgendered using the woman’s bathroom.

  86. 86

    Vivid, so very sad that people feel their jobs are in jeopardy if they express an opinion on transgenderism that does not follow the party line.

    Now to EG point on the lack of assaults on women from men using their bathrooms… why should we need data on assaults to ascertain the degree to which women are traumatized by the presence of men using their bathrooms and dressing spaces?

    If I in a women’s locker room and saw a man there with his junk hanging out, I’d be pretty annoyed (not traumatized, necessarily), and would complain to the institution that permitted this. I can naturally understand how men (who are wildly different from women) would not mind women invading their spaces with their junk hanging out. The trauma felt by women goes beyond just physical assaults. Further, I would not be keen on my sixteen year old daughter sharing a gym locker room with a sixteen year old man – girls don’t need to look at that stuff at that tender age, in the context of a shower room.

  87. 87
    ET says:

    john a designer:

    Frankly I think Ed’s sole purpose for being here is to be disruptive and waste everyone’s time.

    Thank you for your astute observation. On other forums, “Ed” has even admitted it. “Ed” is only here to smear.

  88. 88
    kairosfocus says:

    EG, enough has been said to show the issues you are evading and implications of agendas being pushed. I will simply note at this point, that a profound and sadly bizarre psychological disturbance of identity is not a proper identity. It calls for responsible care and counselling, rather than being used as yet another battering ram to destroy our civilisation starting with personal identity; not to mention, inviting vulnerable boys and girls to undertake dangerous chemical treatments and/or undergoing needless surgical mutilation. Nor, should our women and girls be made into targets by breaking down an important safe, private space in the public domain. I have already pointed out a key reality, and need not further elaborate on dangers stemming from the principle that the law is a teacher for good or ill. Your insistence on pushing a dangerous agenda, which is also obviously connected to grooming, is duly noted and duly connected to the inherent amorality and folly of atheism and its penumbra of influence in a civilisation that has lost its moral and intellectual compasses. A hundred years ago when Bryan et al warned along such lines, it was ignored or dismissed; now, we see it in action. KF

    PS, to ET. I am very aware of gross, willful violation of privacy, as well as breaking down of the balance of safety. We need not elaborate on how this latest push-point of the cultural marxist agenda has also been used to undermine women’s sports.

  89. 89
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: Ever so much of the bizarre nonsense we are being dragged through as a civilisation stems from what Plato warned against 2360 years ago in The Laws, Bk X. I duly note, and will continue to note in reply to further agenda-pushing:

    Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,360 ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical “material” elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ –> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . .

    [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-

    [ –> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by “winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . ” cf a video on Plato’s parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]

    These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,

    [ –> Evolutionary materialism — having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT — leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for “OUGHT” is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in “spin”) . . . ]

    and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ –> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality “naturally” leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ –> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, “naturally” tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush — as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [–> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].

    We were warned over 2,000 years ago. If we refuse to heed such hard-bought lessons of history tied to the collapse of the Athenian experiment of Democracy, the consequences are our fault stemming from our folly. KF

  90. 90
    kairosfocus says:

    PS: Plato’s further warning, from The Republic:

    It is not too hard to figure out that our civilisation is in deep trouble and is most likely headed for shipwreck. (And of course, that sort of concern is dismissed as “apocalyptic,” or neurotic pessimism that refuses to pause and smell the roses.)

    Plato’s Socrates spoke to this sort of situation, long since, in the ship of state parable in The Republic, Bk VI:

    >>[Soc.] I perceive, I said, that you are vastly amused at having plunged me into such a hopeless discussion; but now hear the parable, and then you will be still more amused at the meagreness of my imagination: for the manner in which the best men are treated in their own States is so grievous that no single thing on earth is comparable to it; and therefore, if I am to plead their cause, I must have recourse to fiction, and put together a figure made up of many things, like the fabulous unions of goats and stags which are found in pictures.

    Imagine then a fleet or a ship in which there is a captain [–> often interpreted, ship’s owner] who is taller and stronger than any of the crew, but he is a little deaf and has a similar infirmity in sight, and his knowledge of navigation is not much better. [= The people own the community and in the mass are overwhelmingly strong, but are ill equipped on the whole to guide, guard and lead it]

    The sailors are quarrelling with one another about the steering – every one is of opinion that he has a right to steer [= selfish ambition to rule and dominate], though he has never learned the art of navigation and cannot tell who taught him or when he learned, and will further assert that it cannot be taught, and they are ready to cut in pieces any one who says the contrary. They throng about the captain, begging and praying him to commit the helm to them [–> kubernetes, steersman, from which both cybernetics and government come in English]; and if at any time they do not prevail, but others are preferred to them, they kill the others or throw them overboard [ = ruthless contest for domination of the community], and having first chained up the noble captain’s senses with drink or some narcotic drug [ = manipulation and befuddlement, cf. the parable of the cave], they mutiny and take possession of the ship and make free with the stores; thus, eating and drinking, they proceed on their voyage in such a manner as might be expected of them [–> Cf here Luke’s subtle case study in Ac 27].

    Him who is their partisan and cleverly aids them in their plot for getting the ship out of the captain’s hands into their own whether by force or persuasion [–> Nihilistic will to power on the premise of might and manipulation making ‘right’ ‘truth’ ‘justice’ ‘rights’ etc], they compliment with the name of sailor, pilot, able seaman, and abuse the other sort of man, whom they call a good-for-nothing; but that the true pilot must pay attention to the year and seasons and sky and stars and winds, and whatever else belongs to his art, if he intends to be really qualified for the command of a ship, and that he must and will be the steerer, whether other people like or not-the possibility of this union of authority with the steerer’s art has never seriously entered into their thoughts or been made part of their calling.

    Now in vessels which are in a state of mutiny and by sailors who are mutineers, how will the true pilot be regarded? Will he not be called by them a prater, a star-gazer, a good-for-nothing?

    [Ad.] Of course, said Adeimantus.

    [Soc.] Then you will hardly need, I said, to hear the interpretation of the figure, which describes the true philosopher in his relation to the State[ –> here we see Plato’s philosoppher-king emerging]; for you understand already.

    [Ad.] Certainly.

    [Soc.] Then suppose you now take this parable to the gentleman who is surprised at finding that philosophers have no honour in their cities; explain it to him and try to convince him that their having honour would be far more extraordinary.

    [Ad.] I will.

    [Soc.] Say to him, that, in deeming the best votaries of philosophy to be useless to the rest of the world, he is right; but also tell him to attribute their uselessness to the fault of those who will not use them, and not to themselves. The pilot should not humbly beg the sailors to be commanded by him –that is not the order of nature; neither are ‘the wise to go to the doors of the rich’ –the ingenious author of this saying told a lie –but the truth is, that, when a man is ill, whether he be rich or poor, to the physician he must go, and he who wants to be governed, to him who is able to govern. The ruler who is good for anything ought not to beg his subjects to be ruled by him [ –> down this road lies the modern solution: a sound, well informed people will seek sound leaders, who will not need to manipulate or bribe or worse, and such a ruler will in turn be checked by the soundness of the people, cf. US DoI, 1776]; although the present governors of mankind are of a different stamp; they may be justly compared to the mutinous sailors, and the true helmsmen to those who are called by them good-for-nothings and star-gazers.

    [Ad.] Precisely so, he said.

    [Soc] For these reasons, and among men like these, philosophy, the noblest pursuit of all, is not likely to be much esteemed by those of the opposite faction; not that the greatest and most lasting injury is done to her by her opponents, but by her own professing followers, the same of whom you suppose the accuser to say, that the greater number of them are arrant rogues, and the best are useless; in which opinion I agreed [–> even among the students of the sound state (here, political philosophy and likely history etc.), many are of unsound motivation and intent, so mere education is not enough, character transformation is critical].

    [Ad.] Yes.

    [Soc.] And the reason why the good are useless has now been explained?

    [Ad.] True.

    [Soc.] Then shall we proceed to show that the corruption of the majority is also unavoidable, and that this is not to be laid to the charge of philosophy any more than the other?

    [Ad.] By all means.

    [Soc.] And let us ask and answer in turn, first going back to the description of the gentle and noble nature.[ — > note the character issue] Truth, as you will remember, was his leader, whom he followed always and in all things [ –> The spirit of truth as a marker]; failing in this, he was an impostor, and had no part or lot in true philosophy [–> the spirit of truth is a marker, for good or ill] . . . >>

    (There is more than an echo of this in Acts 27, a real world case study. [Luke, a physician, was an educated Greek with a taste for subtle references.] This blog post, on soundness in policy, will also help)

    There is no end to radical follies once domineering power is gained, save the sort of shipwreck that occurred literally in the Ac 27 case and which extends metaphorically to the sort of voyage Plato discussed. For my part, I originally come from a country where ideological-economic shipwreck happened, in the teeth of sound and timely counsel; which was met with terrible threats and actual, murderous violence. Part of that collapse was a low grade civil war.

  91. 91
    Ed George says:

    KF

    Nor, should our women and girls be made into targets by breaking down an important safe, private space in the public domain.

    Again, children are at far greater risk of sexual interference from their priest than women are from transgendered using a bathroom. The data doesn’t lie. You are conjuring boogeymen where none exist.

    I sympathize with Emily feeling uncomfortable about it, as I still do about the idea of two men having sex. But I have long accepted that I don’t have a right to not feel uncomfortable, and that the problem is mine, not with the two men who want to be intimate with each other. Perhaps Emily should examine her own feelings and assess whether they are based on real risk or just a personal prejudice.

  92. 92
    kairosfocus says:

    EG, you have chosen to spin on with cultural marxist agenda talking points. I choose to repeat Plato’s warning and will continue to do so,

    Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,360 ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical “material” elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ –> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . .

    [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-

    [ –> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by “winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . ” cf a video on Plato’s parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]

    These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,

    [ –> Evolutionary materialism — having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT — leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for “OUGHT” is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in “spin”) . . . ]

    and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ –> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality “naturally” leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ –> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, “naturally” tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush — as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [–> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].

    I also notice, a slide down into discussion of the bizarre and perverted that is simply not needed for a serious discussion. Coupled to, unwarranted promotion of broad-brush suspicion and tainting. A further proof of the toxic agenda.

    I suggest to you that you would be well advised to stop the down-spiral at this point.

    While I am at it, you would be further well advised to address how you expect us to be governed by first duties of reason, to truth, to principles of right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to fairness and justice etc. That points to the need to bridge the IS-OUGHT gap, only feasible at root of reality. We are therefore looking for the inherently good and utterly wise, necessary being source of worlds.

    That answers decisively to all forms of moral and legal relativism and/or amorality.

    When it comes to any and all perversions of sex, the sound answer is still found in the words of the greatest teacher of humanity:

    Matt 19:3 And Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”

    4 He replied, “Have you never read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined inseparably to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?

    6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh.

    Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

    7 The Pharisees said to Him, “Why then did Moses command us to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8 He said to them, “Because your hearts were hard and stubborn Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9 I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery[a].” [AMP]

    Apply, a fortiori reasoning, and the like or how much more so, to any and all perversions of that naturally evident creation order.

    KF

  93. 93
    vividbleau says:

    Emily
    “Perhaps Emily should examine her own feelings and assess whether they are based on real risk or just a personal prejudice.”

    Emily you getting this? The champion of women, the “mansplainer” is telling you that you have no right to feel uncomfortable and your the problem! After all Ed being a man and all knows what best and you need to accede to your betters,. So shut up and get back into the kitchen.
    Vivid

  94. 94
    kairosfocus says:

    Vivid, it is worse than that. Emily’s rights to person and privacy have been utterly discounted in the name of an ideology riding piggyback on promoting profound psychological dysfunctionality as though it were the new normal. In my case, it was suggested that someone going to a priest for spiritual services, would be “more at risk of abuse” than someone whose rights have already been violated. That also taints all priests as guilty until proved innocent to arbitrary standard; rather than respecting the right to innocent reputation. Further, the effective demand is to use power of office to impose the agenda items of today, with the door perpetually open for the next, even more bizarre demand. We already see, open calls to abolish policing and secure borders on excuse of real or imagined abuses. Sunday past, we saw that effective defence against intended mass murder in a house of worship was twisted into a demand to be defenceless sheep waiting for the slaughter, on grounds that (contrary to evidence right there in the video record) we are suspect of being utterly irresponsible dangers to ourselves. The obvious long term agenda is totalitarian and suppressive, subjugating every aspect and moment of life to the power and whims of big brother’s bizarre nanny state without regard to rights and liberties, i.e. justice. This is thinly veiled misanthropy. Worse, we know long since that the unaccountable state’s agents inevitably turn predatory. All of this should be setting off big, red warning flags, lights and alarms. KF

    PS: It is clearly time to repudiate the amoral, implicitly nihilistic legal positivism of our day: roughly, law is whatever those with relevant civil power impose [implying, might and/or manipulation make ‘right’/ ‘rights’/ ‘truth’/ ‘reason’/ ‘justice’ etc], and to return to the sound premise that we are inherently quasi-infinite value, responsible and rationally free rights-bearing, morally governed, enconscienced creatures ruled by built-in law of that morally governed nature. That natural law starts with inescapable, self evident first duties of reason, such as, to truth, to right reason, to prudence (so, warrant), to sound conscience, to fairness and justice. Where, justice implies the due balance of rights, freedoms and duties in community. Thus, we can and should re-found our framework of law on the same law of nature that led to the 1776 breakthrough in the US DoI and its context. I point here in context for a discussion.

  95. 95
    Axel says:

    @Ed George #91

    ‘…. Again, children are at far greater risk of sexual interference from their priest than women are from transgendered using a bathroom. The data doesn’t lie.’

    Indeed, it doesn’t, but you seem to be repeatedly retailing imaginary data cooked up by ‘crusading’ homosexuals’. Apparently, the reality is that the vast majority of perverted, sexual relationships of delinquent priests are with young men and adolescent males. I’ll see if I can find the figures.

    https://www.catholicleague.org/sexual-abuse-in-social-context-clergy-and-other-professionals/

  96. 96
    OLV says:

    ID on steroids?

    Multi-Phenotype Association Decomposition: Unraveling Complex Gene-Phenotype Relationships

    Various patterns of multi-phenotype associations (MPAs) exist in the results of Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS) involving different topologies of single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-phenotype associations. These can provide interesting information about the different impacts of a gene on closely related phenotypes or disparate phenotypes (pleiotropy).

    Unraveling the complex genetic patterns underlying complex phenotypes has previously been challenging. While individual Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS) can provide insight into the genetic underpinnings of measured phenotypes, they typically involved associations of genetic variants with only one or a few phenotypes. The field of phenomics involves the collection of high-dimensional phenotype data of an organism, with the aim of capturing the overall, comprehensive phenotype (the “Phenome”) of the organism (Houle et al., 2010). Association studies involving many measured phenotypes, for example, Phenome-Wide Association Studies (PheWAS) present many advantages, in that they allow for the complex interconnected networks between phenotypes and their genetic underpinnings to be elucidated, and also allow for the detection of pleiotropy (Pendergrass et al., 2011, 2013, 2015; Hall et al., 2014).

    Pleiotropy is the phenomenon in which a gene affects multiple phenotypes (Tyler et al., 2009). One can also have a locus-centric view of pleiotropy involving a single SNP affecting multiple phenotypes (Solovieff et al., 2013). While pleiotropy used to be considered an exception to the rules of Mendelian genetics, it has since been proposed to be a common, central property inherent to biological systems (Tyler et al., 2009).

     

     

  97. 97
    Ed George says:

    KF

    EG, you have chosen to spin on with cultural marxist agenda talking points.

    No, I have merely provided you with some uncomfortable facts.
    VB

    Emily you getting this? The champion of women, the “mansplainer” is telling you that you have no right to feel uncomfortable and your the problem!

    Please don’t put words in my mouth. Of course she has the right to be uncomfortable. Just as I am uncomfortable about the idea of two men being intimate. But the basis of some of the things that make us uncomfortable are not based in actual increased risk of harm.

  98. 98
    ET says:

    Acartia Eddie:

    No, I have merely provided you with some uncomfortable facts.

    Except you haven’t provided any facts. And you ignore reality.

  99. 99
  100. 100

    Hi Upright Biped:

    I like the name! Thank you for the welcome. The conversations on this site are MUCH more civil than on reddit, which I appreciate.

    Thanks for your input!

  101. 101

    Hi Barry:

    Thank you as well for the welcome. Looks to be a fun adventure, posting to this site! I have to admit, I love debate, rigorous debate, provided it is civil and there’s no name calling.

    Look forward to future posts!

  102. 102
    john_a_designer says:

    Moral subjectivists are really at the root of it all epistemological subjectivists.

    Recently, I asked on another thread:

    Why are we wasting time on people who are epistemological subjectivists like Ed George? His belief is that all he or anyone else has are opinions. You want proof? Here’s a debate we had with Mr. George about a year ago (12/18) when we were debating whether math was something that had been discovered or had been invented with him and others.

    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-is-seeing-the-glaringly-obvious-so-hard/#comment-688256
    I pointed out there that on the earlier thread (12/11/18) that Ed agreed that his reasoning goes like this:

    Either X or Y could be true

    EG believes Y

    Therefore, Y is true.

    In other words, Ed George believes it. That settles it.

    To which Ed, apparently without embarrassment responded:

    That is all any of us can do. Mathematics either exists independent of humans or it is something invented by humans to model our observations. My opinion is that it is the latter. ET and KF believe it is the former. But, unfortunately, there is no way of determining which is true. And, frankly, does it matter?

    https://uncommondescent.com/mathematics/logic-first-principles-4-the-logic-of-being-causality-and-science/#comment-669576

    In other words, Ed is ‘arguing,’ “I don’t know, therefore, nobody knows.”

    But the question then is how does he know nobody else knows?

    I would argue his position is self-refuting, therefore, it’s a non-starter. An argument which is only an argument about a personal opinion is not really an argument, it’s only being pointlessly argumentative. The objective of any logical argument is to establish the truth. Doubling down on one’s personal beliefs doesn’t move the ball in either direction. It is nothing more than a self-serving combination of hubris and dogmatism.

    So far Ed has not responded. Should we, therefore, assume that that is still his position? Perhaps he is beginning to see that his positon is not only indefensible but irrational… Possible, but I doubt it.

    In Mere Christianity C.S. Lewis argued that the truths of morality, or what he calls Law of Human Nature, are very analogous to the truths of mathematics.

    [P]eople wrote to me saying ‘Isn’t what you call the Moral Law just a social convention, something that is put into us by education?’ I think there is a misunderstanding here. The people who ask that question are usually taking it for granted that if we have learned a thing from parents and teachers, then that thing must be merely a human invention. But, of course, that is not so. We all learned the multiplication table at school. A child who grew up alone on a desert island would not know it. But surely it does not follow that the multiplication table is simply a human convention, something human beings made up for themselves and might have made different if they had liked? I fully agree that we learn the Rule of Decent Behaviour from parents and teachers, and friends and books, as we learn everything else. But some of the things we learn are mere conventions which might have been different — we learn to keep to the left of the road, but it might just as well have been the rule to keep to the right — and others of them, like mathematics, are real truths. The questions is to which class the Law of Human Nature[morality] belongs.

    https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/ownwords/mere1.html

    Indeed, unlike the people living in the U.S. the Brit’s believe that “left is right and right is wrong.” Of course, we are talking about which side of the road you are supposed to drive on. However, I find it ironic that the very nation where the English language originated created laws that use their language in a paradoxical if not contradictory sort of way. Of course, the paradox is a result of the equivocal way we are using right and left here. Maybe they were just having a little fun– as in fun with a pun. (On second thought, other than Monty Python do the Brits know how to have fun?)

    The point is of course is that morality in Lewis’ view is not simply an arbitrary conventional set of rules like which side of the road you are permitted to drive on.

  103. 103
    bornagain77 says:

    Vividbleau at 93, “the “mansplainer” is telling you that you have no right to feel uncomfortable and your the problem! ”

    LOL 🙂 awesome!

  104. 104

    I saw that Bornagain77, and I actually was a bit amused!

    Honestly, I love that Ed George is reading UD content and responding (of course I obviously don’t have the history with him that you guys all do). Debate makes all of us sharper and more focused.

    As an example, I have learned much reading the responses to Ed’s arguments, things I might not have learned if Ed did not challenge what we were all saying. As a science person, I am only somewhat familiar with C.S. Lewis, and even philosophy! Thank you guys (and ladies) for responding and keeping the conversations civil. I hope Ed reads, argues, and responds to everything I write in the future!

    Thanks everyone for your very thoughtful responses and civil discourse!

  105. 105
    john_a_designer says:

    It’s worth considering the other points Lewis makes.

    There are two reasons for saying [morality] belongs to the same class as mathematics. The first is, as I said in the first chapter, that though there are differences between the moral ideas of one time or country and those of another, the differences are not really very great — not nearly so great as most people imagine — and you can recognize the same lay running through them all: whereas mere conventions, like the rule of the road of the kinds or clothes people wear, may differ to any extent. The other reason is this. When you think about these differences between the morality of one people and another, do you think that the morality of one people is ever better or worse than that of another? Have any of the changes been improvements? If not, then of course there could never be any moral progress. Progress means not just changing, but changing for the better. If no set of moral ideas were truer or better than any other, there would be no sense in preferring civilized morality to savage morality, or Christian morality to Nazi morality. In fact, of course, we all do believe that some moralities are better than others. We do believe that some of the people who tried to change the moral ideas of their own age were what we would call Reformers of Pioneers — people who understood morality better than their neighbors did. Very well then. The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures two things is something different from either. You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality, admitting that there is such a thing as a real Right, independent of what people think, and that some people’s ideas get nearer to that real Right than others. Or put it this way. If your moral ideas can be truer, and those of the Nazis less true, there must be something — some Real Morality — for them to be true about. The reason why your idea of New York can be truer of less true than mine is that New York is a real place, existing quite apart from what either of us thinks. If when each of us said ‘New York’ each means merely ‘The town I am imagining in my own head’, how could one of us have truer ideas than the other? There would be no question of truth or falsehood at all. In the same way, if the Rule of Decent Behaviour meant simply ‘whatever each nation happens to approve’, there would be no sense in saying that any one nation had even been more correct in its approval than any other; no sense in saying that the world would ever grow morally better or morally worse. (emphasis added)

  106. 106
    kairosfocus says:

    EG,

    Spinning the wheels will only dig you in deeper in the mud.

    The fundamental error and wellspring of the increasingly bizarre errors you and many others promote or enable is adopting or accommodating evolutionary materialism, which ends up in might and/or manipulation make ‘right’ etc. Such nihilism- and- amorality . . . what the resulting relativism boils down to . . . is immediately absurd and self refuting. We saw how we were just reminded of your blunders on core math [and we could go to town on aesthetics too].

    Plato warned against this sort of folly 2360 years ago and you have no more answer now than Alcibiades and co did. Athens’ failure as a democracy should be one of the core lessons of history firmly fixed in every educated person’s mind, but obviously, such has so conveniently been forgotten.

    No prizes for guessing why.

    KF

    PS: When you keep dragging down into the sewer of sexual perversities and seem unable to stop [even after we took time out to deal with the sewer problem months ago], it speaks. There is a decent lady and mother with a daughter as original poster. Please, have some regard. And no, I have absolutely no intent to go down into the sewers again. The most is, the solution to profound identity confusion is not to be found in pretending that this is not a serious disorder. Serious disorders need help, not enabling and must not be turned into stalking horses for wrecking our civilisation. And if you and ilk cannot read the signs of the peasant uprisings by ballot box and think star chamber and media lynch mob tactics are an appropriate response, please think again on what you are going to provoke.

  107. 107
    kairosfocus says:

    PPS: I remind, from Plato:

    Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,360 ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical “material” elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ –> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . .

    [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-

    [ –> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by “winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . ” cf a video on Plato’s parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]

    These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,

    [ –> Evolutionary materialism — having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT — leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for “OUGHT” is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in “spin”) . . . ]

    and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ –> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality “naturally” leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ –> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, “naturally” tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush — as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [–> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].

  108. 108
    kairosfocus says:

    JAD, First duties are coeval with first principles of right reason. Just as, deny distinct identity and you cannot even consistently communicate (as well as undermining the root of numbers!) or demand proof that logic is justified requires said logic to proceed, we are inescapably bound by duties to truth, right reason, prudence, sound conscience, fairness and justice etc. Indeed, in trying to undermine confidence in the built-in, inescapable moral government of our rationality and responsible freedom, EG and ilk are forced to appeal to our implicitly recognised duties to same. Doubtless, the undermining is because of where such inescapable first duties point: we need an inherently good, utterly wise, finitely remote necessary being root of reality and source of worlds. Only thus, can the IS-OUGHT gap be securely bridged. And, that is where such absolutely will not go. So, they are forced to cling to absurdities and to argue inconsistently. From that, the road to might and/or manipulation make ‘right’ etc is wide open, but winding. And, such nihilism- and- amorality becomes ever more bizarre in its moral inversions and perversities. It is time to stop the madness. KF

  109. 109
    Silver Asiatic says:

    EG

    The last time I looked, we don’t have a right to not feel uncomfortable.

    You could reconsider this in terms of laws against sexual harassment.

  110. 110
    Seversky says:

    Emily Morales @ 2

    I would question your credentials as a reader, where did I make any moral judgements concerning transgenderism?

    After spending a few years in these discussions, it becomes possible to infer attitudes from the phraseology used in comments. You wrote:

    We might even see where Darwinism has enjoyed similar adherence from the materialistic faithful, as a cursed idol of Bacon’s marketplace.

    Referring to the theory of evolution as “Darwinism” and its adherents as “materialistic faithful” is suggestive of conservative Christian belief which is opposed to the theory and to homosexuality and transgenderism in part on moral grounds. If you have no moral objections to evolution, homosexuality or transgenderism on moral grounds then I apologize for the error.

    My judgement on the matter stems from the fact that the notion one can change their gender simply because they change a pronoun is absurd, and does not constitute “science.” as we know it.

    I agree, it is an absurd notion, so absurd that I’m not aware of any one in the scientific or lay communities that has seriously advanced it. I have read of transgender individuals who have insisted that other people use the pronoun most appropriate to their felt gender but never that simply changing the pronoun automatically changes their self-perception as male or female. If you know of a psychologist or psychiatrist who has made such a claim I would be interested to know who it was.

    Because this movement is given undue science creds, there are many implications for society: one is legal protection for biological men to be allowed access to women’s places – traumatizing women; medical procedures and treatments that pose unusual risk for minors; and the introduction of a politicized curricula to very young people.

    I don’t see the movement claiming undue warrant from science for its position. The legal and social implications are just that, legal and social, not scientific. Society as a whole has to make adequate provision to protect the vulnerable as should always be the case.

    It should go without saying that minors should not be cajoled into reconsidering their gender to suit someone else’s political agenda nor should they be subject to any medical treatments or procedures without their informed consent or that of their legal guardians. Are you aware of instances in which this has happened? The Telegraph article you cite at comment 24 can be interpreted as a professional difference of opinion between doctors as to the best approach to the issue and doesn’t suggest treatments or procedures were forced on children against their will or that of their parents, which would constitute criminal assault if it actually happened.

    On a tangent, I assume you are aware that homosexuality was originally classified as a medical disorder according to various theories concerning its pathology in DSM-I and DSM-II but was eventually removed from DSM-III? According to this paper:

    In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed the diagnosis of “homosexuality” from the second edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). This resulted after comparing competing theories, those that pathologized homosexuality and those that viewed it as normal. In an effort to explain how that decision came about, this paper reviews some historical scientific theories and arguments that first led to the placement of homosexuality in DSM-I and DSM-II as well as alternative theories that eventually led to its removal from DSM III and subsequent editions of the manual. The paper concludes with a discussion of the sociocultural aftermath of that 1973 decision.

    For a period it was an illness according to the relevant scientific community. Then it wasn’t. It would appear that psychiatry has a similar problem defining psychiatric disorders to the one taxonomists face finding a one-size-fits-all definition of “species”. Perhaps because they are very complex subjects not amenable to simple explanations.

    The reason I cite that paper is that, further down, the author discusses the related issue of gender:

    It is rare to find a theory of homosexuality that does not draw upon gender beliefs that contain implicit cultural ideas about the “essential” qualities of men and women [14,16,25]. “Real men” and “real women” are powerful cultural myths with which everyone must contend. People express gender beliefs, their own and those of the culture in which they live, in everyday language as they either indirectly or explicitly accept and assign gendered meanings to what they and others do, think, and feel. Gender beliefs touch upon almost every aspect of daily life, including such mundane concerns as what shoes men should wear or “deeper” questions of masculinity such as whether men should openly cry or sleep with other men. Gender beliefs are embedded in questions about what career a woman should pursue and, at another level of discourse, what it would mean if a professional woman were to forego rearing children or pursue a career more aggressively than a man.

    Gender beliefs are usually based upon gender binaries. The most ancient and well known is the male/female binary. However there is also the 19th century binary of homosexuality/heterosexuality (or gay/straight in the 20th century) and the emerging 21st century binary of transgender/cisgender. It should be noted that binaries are not confined to popular usage. Many scientific studies of homosexuality contain implicit (and often explicit) binary gender beliefs as well. For example, the intersex hypothesis of homosexuality [26,27] maintains that the brains of homosexual individuals exhibit characteristics that would be considered more typical of the other sex. The essentialist gender belief implicit in the intersex hypotheses is that an attraction to women is a masculine trait, which in the case of Sigmund Freud [28], for example (also see below), led to his theory that lesbians have a masculine psychology. Similarly, biological researchers have presumed gay men have brains that more closely resemble those of women [29] or are recipients of extra fragments of their mothers’ X (female) chromosomes [30].

    He goes on to point out the inevitable moral dimension to the issue :

    Rigid gender beliefs usually flourish in fundamentalist, religious communities where any information or alternative explanations that might challenge implicit and explicit assumptions are unwelcome. When entering the realms of gender and sexuality, it is not unusual to encounter another form of binary thinking: “morality tales” about whether certain kinds of thoughts, feelings, or behaviors are “good or bad” or, in some cases, whether they are “good or evil” [14,15,16]. The good/bad binary is not confined to religion alone, as the language of morality is inevitably found, for example, in theories about the “causes” of homosexuality. For in the absence of certitude about homosexuality’s “etiology,” binary gender beliefs and their associated moral underpinnings frequently play a role in theories about the causes and/or meanings of homosexuality. When one recognizes the narrative forms of these theories, some of the moral judgments and beliefs embedded in each of them become clearer.

    In my view, as an atheist/agnostic/materialist/naturalist or whatever you want to call me, it is immoral to discriminate against individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender dysphoria. I was also raised as a Christian and, again in my view, discrimination on those grounds is also inconsistent with the spirit of the Christian morality I was taught.

  111. 111
    kairosfocus says:

    PS: Just to set a record straight, let’s list correctives to the six myths ET linked, from Psychology Today:

    1. Catholic clergy aren’t more likely to abuse children than other clergy or men in general.
    2. Clergy sexual abuse in the Catholic Church can’t be blamed on celibacy. Not having sex doesn’t make children the object of one’s desire.
    3. Clergy sexual abuse in the Catholic Church can’t be blamed on homosexuality [–> in the sense, merely having a same sex attraction problem does not cause preying on teens and young boys, though, doubtless, predators will always try to go to where their favoured prey are].
    4. Clergy sexual abuse in the Catholic Church can’t be blamed on an all-male clergy.
    5. Almost all of clergy sexual abuse cases in the Catholic Church that we hear about in the news are from decades ago (usually the 1960s and 70s). [–> Doesn’t mean nothing is current, but it does give pause]
    6. Most clergy sex offenders aren’t pedophiles. [–> as in teens and young adults, not younger, pre-puberty children, are targets]

    Point 1 is key, we cannot practically remove boys from the presence of men; which would itself be abusive and undermining of the critical need to nurture young boys into gentlemanly ways.

    In short, the attempted turnabout fails.

  112. 112
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77 @ 7

    Really Seversky?? how people choose to live their lives”,???? Do you now believe in free will Seversky??? Come on Seversky get with the program and at least try to be consistent within your Atheistic materialism. You are a ‘meat robot’ PERIOD! You have no free will to choose anything, much less choosing how you may want to live your life.

    You should know. The story of Peter’s triple denial of knowing Jesus is evidence that you don’t if your God exists.

    Moreover, contrary to Seversky’s claim that “science, unlike her religion, is not in the business of passing moral judgments on how people choose to live their lives”, the fact of the matter is that the moral rot of the false science of Darwinian atheism does indeed directly morally impact how people may choose to live their lives. Specifically, the nihilism inherent in the false doctrine of Atheistic Materialism drives people into moral despair.

    Perhaps that’s why you prefer the “opium of the people”. It may or may not be true but it does block out the despair.

    Needless to say atheistic materialism, a worldview that is devoid of any real meaning, beauty or purpose, for life is a severely impoverished, even severely depressing, worldview for anyone to falsely believe to be true.

    So we agree on something! We both believe that the appeal of religious belief, in part, lies in the fact that, for many people, the alternative is an intolerably bleak prospect. Again, that doesn’t mean it is necessarily right, just that it makes people feel better.

    Of supplemental note, Seversky once again attacked Christianity for a father praying for his daughter and allowing her to die instead of seeking medical treatment for her. What Seversky will NEVER tell you are the millions of lives that have been saved by medicines that were developed by devout Christians:

    The death of that girl was a tragedy that need not have happened. The means to diagnose and treat her condition exist. It is outrageous if your God exists and did not lift a finger to help her.

    I am quite happy to tell you about the millions whose lives have been saved by medical science and that many of the researchers were devout Christians. The point that you continually miss is that they had to do it at all. Your God could have told them all about bacteria, viruses, prion proteins or cancers and saved a whole lot of time. He could even have wiped them all out with a Jedi-like wave of His hand if He chose. But He didn’t. How many billions have died over the whole of human history because it was left to ordinary human beings through plodding, dogged research to get just to where we are now? Why should that be?

  113. 113
    ET says:

    seversky:

    Referring to the theory of evolution as “Darwinism” and its adherents as “materialistic faithful” is suggestive of conservative Christian belief which is opposed to the theory …

    What theory? Who was the author? When was it published? What journal?

    The reason your alleged theory of evolution is referred to as Darwinism is because mainstream evolutionary thought still pertains to the same types of processes Darwin envisioned. And it is still as untestable now as it was then.

    And one doesn’t need to be a Christian to see and understand the untestable nature of what mainstream evolution claims. But anyway…

    Someday, the special considerations we give to the dysphoric and gender-bending minorities will be extended to the unborn. We care too much about hurting someone’s feelings by calling them by their biologically proper pronouns and not nearly enough about our ignorant-based, barbaric population control.

  114. 114
    ET says:

    seversky:

    The story of Peter’s triple denial of knowing Jesus is evidence that you don’t if your God exists.

    And that story could be taken out of context. It could be that Jesus was telling him to deny that he knew Jesus. Not predicting, telling, like an order.

    As for the “opium of the people”, that’s just chest-puffing ignorance. What does a person have to be on to think that minds arose from the mindless via blind, mindless and purposeless processes?

    And seversky still refuses to get it. The bridge is burned. We have to learn for ourselves. That is our destiny while we are here.

  115. 115
    Silver Asiatic says:

    KF

    Point 1 is key, we cannot practically remove boys from the presence of men; which would itself be abusive and undermining of the critical need to nurture young boys into gentlemanly ways.

    True, but many Catholic authorities have now admitted that there was too much laxity in priestly-seminaries in the 60s and 70s and men with homosexual tendencies were permitted into the priesthood.

    Myth: Children have been the main victims of priestly sexual abuse.
    Fact: Since more than 95 percent of all the victims of priestly sexual abuse, as reported by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, are not prepubescent, that means that adolescents have been the primary victims.
    Myth: Pedophile priests have been the problem.
    Fact: Homosexual priests have been the problem. Proof: 81 percent of the victims have been male, and more than 95 percent have been postpubescent. When males have sex with postpubescent males, it is called homosexuality.
    Myth: The problem is on-going.
    Fact: The homosexual scandal took place mostly between the mid-1960s and the mid-1980s. In the last ten years, the average number of credible accusations made against 40,000 priests is in the single digits.
    Myth: The Church’s repressive teachings on sexuality are the problem.
    Fact: It was liberals outside the Church who pushed for the sexual revolution, and it was liberals in the Church who abetted the revolution in the seminaries. Moreover, it was liberals who promoted therapy as the way to deal with molesters, instead of using punitive measures.
    Myth: The Church has done nothing about the problem.
    Fact: Pope Benedict XVI made it more difficult for active homosexual priests to enter the priesthood, thus getting directly to the source of the problem. Also, steps have been taken in every diocese to ensure that anyone who works for the Church must participate in a training program aimed at curtailing the abuse of minors.
    https://www.catholicleague.org/facts-about-priestly-sexual-abuse-2/

  116. 116
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Seversky

    How many billions have died over the whole of human history because it was left to ordinary human beings through plodding, dogged research to get just to where we are now? Why should that be?

    Because God gave us a chance to learn something new in every generation. The new findings have not stopped. Life on earth is an adventure – and along the way, we should find God.
    But as to “how many people have died”?
    I think all of them have so far, except for everybody living now. But they will die also.
    Why is that?
    Because life for humans on earth is temporary. It’s a testing, proving-ground.
    It’s not how long you live that counts, but how well you live and the kind of relationships we build, with others and firstly with God Himself.
    Atheism has nothing to offer. It is utter nonsense.
    You seem to take pride in the fact that your view offers nothing but despair.
    But even that is absolutely nothing. Materialism does not even give us a basis to evaluate anything as being true or false.

  117. 117
    bornagain77 says:

    At 112 Seversky states:

    BA77: Really Seversky?? how people choose to live their lives”,???? Do you now believe in free will Seversky??? Come on Seversky get with the program and at least try to be consistent within your Atheistic materialism. You are a ‘meat robot’ PERIOD! You have no free will to choose anything, much less choosing how you may want to live your life.

    Sev: You should know. The story of Peter’s triple denial of knowing Jesus is evidence that you don’t (have free will) if your God exists.

    Seversky tries his usual dodge of appealing to God’s omniscience to try to get around the devastating fact that, if atheistic materialism were actually true, he is a deterministic ‘meat robot’, and all rationality is completely undermined. Yet, the fatal flaw in Sev’s reasoning is that omniscience does not equal coercion. For instance, if I knew exactly what Sev was going to do tomorrow, and preferred that he not do it, and told him that I preferred that he not do it, but he went ahead and did it anyway, it obviously is not me forcing Sev to do what he did. But it is Sev himself, by his own will and desire doing what he ‘desires’ to do.
    “Desire” being the key word there. Many times people, like drug addicts and alcoholics, do things that they know they ought not do, but they do them anyway because their ‘fleshly desires’ have compromised their rational free will.
    Such is the case with Peter’s denial of Christ. Peter’s “fleshly desire” for self preservation outweighed his rational free will that he rightly ought to stand up for what he knew to be true. Namely that he personally knew Jesus.
    This is all perfectly consistent with scripture. As Jesus himself stated in the same passage where he predicted Peter’s denial, “The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.”

    Matthew 26:41
    “Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.”

    Thus, Sev’s claim that God’s omniscience precludes our free will simply does not hold water. In the Christian view of reality, the main thing that compromises our free will. (i.e. in our choosing to do what we ought to do), is and always has been our fleshly desires.

    This is common knowledge. That Sev would try to argue against the common knowledge of how free will is compromised by fleshly desires, just to try to shore up his atheism is, besides being ludicrous, par for the course for Sev.

    Moreover, this disingenuous “Theistic” dodge on Sev’s part completely fails to address the catastrophic failure inherent in his atheistic materialism. Namely Darwinists, in their denial of free will, has lost any right to the claim that he is making a rationally coherent argument in the first place.

    (1) rationality implies a thinker in control of thoughts.
    (2) under materialism a thinker is an effect caused by processes in the brain.
    (3) in order for materialism to ground rationality a thinker (an effect) must control processes in the brain (a cause). (1)&(2)
    (4) no effect can control its cause.
    Therefore materialism cannot ground rationality.
    per Box UD

    “Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God”
    — C.S. Lewis (from, The Case for Christianity)

    Sam Harris’s Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It – Martin Cothran – November 9, 2012
    Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state — including their position on this issue — is the effect of a physical, not logical cause.
    By their own logic, it isn’t logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....66221.html

    Simply put, if you believe in reason then you must believe in God. Atheists, especially with their denial of free will, simply have forsaken any claim that they are being reasonable in their arguments.

    “Atheists can give no reason why they should value reason, and Christians can show how anyone who believes in reason must also believe in God.”
    Cogito; Ergo Deus Est by Charles Edward White
    Philosophy Still Lives Because God Isn’t Dead

    The Argument From Reason – resource page
    http://www.reasonsforgod.org/t.....om-reason/

    What is the Logos?
    Logos is a Greek word literally translated as “word, speech, or utterance.” However, in Greek philosophy, Logos refers to divine reason or the power that puts sense into the world making order instead of chaos.,,,
    In the Gospel of John, John writes “In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). John appealed to his readers by saying in essence, “You’ve been thinking, talking, and writing about the Word (divine reason) for centuries and now I will tell you who He is.”
    https://www.compellingtruth.org/what-is-the-Logos.html

    Moreover, the Christian does not have to rely solely on logical necessity in order to support the reality of free will, but the Christian Theist can now also appeal to empirical evidence from neuroscience and quantum mechanics:
    In neurology we find, from the work of Benjamin Libet and others, that we have the ability to veto a “unconscious decision”, i.e. to veto a predisposition to a certain behavior that we might have. As Dr. Egnor notes, “Libet even observed that his experimental confirmation of free will accorded with the traditional religious understanding of free will”:

    Do Benjamin Libet’s Experiments Show that Free Will Is an Illusion? – Michael Egnor – January 15, 2014
    Excerpt: Materialists often invoke the experiments of Benjamin Libet when they deny free will.,,,
    (Yet) Libet himself was a strong defender of free will, and he interpreted his own experiments as validating free will. He noted that his subjects often vetoed the unconscious “decision” after the readiness potential appeared.
    ,,,”The role of conscious free will would be, then, not to initiate a voluntary act, but rather to control whether the act takes place. We may view the unconscious initiatives for voluntary actions as ‘bubbling up’ in the brain. The conscious-will then selects which of these initiatives may go forward to an action or which ones to veto and abort, with no act appearing.” – Libet
    Libet even observed that his experimental confirmation of free will accorded with the traditional religious understanding of free will:,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....81171.html

    Moreover, recent research has revealed that we are more free in our decisions than Libet’s research had suggested:

    A Famous Argument Against Free Will Has Been Debunked
    For decades, a landmark brain study fed speculation about whether we control our own actions. It seems to have made a classic mistake.
    BAHAR GHOLIPOUR – SEP 10, 2019
    Excerpt: In a new study under review for publication in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Schurger and two Princeton researchers repeated a version of Libet’s experiment. To avoid unintentionally cherry-picking brain noise, they included a control condition in which people didn’t move at all. An artificial-intelligence classifier allowed them to find at what point brain activity in the two conditions diverged. If Libet was right, that should have happened at 500 milliseconds before the movement. But the algorithm couldn’t tell any difference until about only 150 milliseconds before the movement, the time people reported making decisions in Libet’s original experiment.
    In other words, people’s subjective experience of a decision—what Libet’s study seemed to suggest was just an illusion—appeared to match the actual moment their brains showed them making a decision.
    When Schurger first proposed the neural-noise explanation, in 2012, the paper didn’t get much outside attention, but it did create a buzz in neuroscience. Schurger received awards for overturning a long-standing idea. “It showed the Bereitschaftspotential may not be what we thought it was. That maybe it’s in some sense artifactual, related to how we analyze our data,” says Uri Maoz, a computational neuroscientist at Chapman University.
    For a paradigm shift, the work met minimal resistance. Schurger appeared to have unearthed a classic scientific mistake, so subtle that no one had noticed it and no amount of replication studies could have solved it, unless they started testing for causality.
    https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/09/free-will-bereitschaftspotential/597736/

    Dr. Jeffery Schwartz has gone even further.

    Dr. Jeffery Schwartz has had much success in treating Obsessive Compulsive Disorders (OCDs) by changing the ‘workings of the brain’ through the ‘focused attention’ of the mind of the patient. This ability to modify our brain, i.e. ‘neuroplasticity’, would not be possible if our thoughts were determined solely by our material brains as Darwinists hold.

    Brains On Purpose
    Excerpt: Jeffrey Schwartz – Decades ago, he began to study the philosophy of conscious awareness, the idea that the actions of the mind have an effect on the workings of the brain. Jeff’s breakthrough work in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) provided the hard evidence that the mind can control the brain’s chemistry.
    http://westallen.typepad.com/b.....artz_.html

    The Case for the Soul – InspiringPhilosophy – (4:03 minute mark, Brain Plasticity including Schwartz’s work) – Oct. 2014 – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBsI_ay8K70

    Jeffrey Schwartz: You Are More than Your Brain – Science Uprising Extra Content – (2019) video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFIOSQNuXuY&list=PLR8eQzfCOiS1OmYcqv_yQSpje4p7rAE7-&index=9

  118. 118
    bornagain77 says:

    Besides this evidence from neurology, and as mentioned previously, there is also evidence from quantum mechanics that now also establishes the reality of free will.

    As Steven Weinberg, an atheist himself, states in the following article, In the instrumentalist approach (in quantum mechanics) humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.,,, the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.,,, In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure,,, Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,

    The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – Steven Weinberg – January 19, 2017
    Excerpt: The instrumentalist approach,, (the) wave function,, is merely an instrument that provides predictions of the probabilities of various outcomes when measurements are made.,,
    In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level. According to Eugene Wigner, a pioneer of quantum mechanics, “it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”11
    Thus the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else. It is not that we object to thinking about humans. Rather, we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans. We may in the end have to give up this goal,,,
    Some physicists who adopt an instrumentalist approach argue that the probabilities we infer from the wave function are objective probabilities, independent of whether humans are making a measurement. I don’t find this tenable. In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,
    http://quantum.phys.unm.edu/46.....inberg.pdf

    In fact Weinberg, again an atheist, rejected the instrumentalist approach precisely because “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level” and because it undermined the Darwinian worldview from within. Yet, regardless of how he and other atheists may prefer the world to behave, quantum mechanics itself could care less how atheists prefer the world to behave.

    For instance, this recent 2019 experimental confirmation of the “Wigner’s Friend” thought experiment established that “measurement results,, must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement”.

    More Than One Reality Exists (in Quantum Physics) By Mindy Weisberger – March 20, 2019
    Excerpt: “measurement results,, must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement”.
    https://www.livescience.com/65029-dueling-reality-photons.html

    Experimental test of local observer-independence – 2019
    Excerpt: The scientific method relies on facts, established through repeated measurements and agreed upon universally, independently of who observed them. In quantum mechanics, the objectivity of observations is not so clear, most dramatically exposed in Eugene Wigner’s eponymous thought experiment where two observers can experience seemingly different realities. The question whether these realities can be reconciled in an observer-independent way has long remained inaccessible to empirical investigation, until recent no-go-theorems constructed an extended Wigner’s friend scenario with four observers that allows us to put it to the test. In a state-of-the-art 6-photon experiment, we realise this extended Wigner’s friend scenario, experimentally violating the associated Bell-type inequality by 5 standard deviations. If one holds fast to the assumptions of locality and free-choice, this result implies that quantum theory should be interpreted in an observer-dependent way.
    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1902.05080.pdf

    Moreover, the Kochen-Speckter Theorem also validates the reality of free will in quantum mechanics.

    As leading experimentalist Anton Zeilinger states in the following video, “what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”

    “The Kochen-Speckter Theorem talks about properties of one system only. So we know that we cannot assume – to put it precisely, we know that it is wrong to assume that the features of a system, which we observe in a measurement exist prior to measurement. Not always. I mean in a certain cases. So in a sense, what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”
    Anton Zeilinger –
    Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism – video (7:17 minute mark)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4C5pq7W5yRM#t=437

    The Kochen-Specker theorem undermines determinism in the most fundamental way possible in that “it would not even be possible to place the information into the universe’s past in an ad hoc way.”

    The free will theorem of John H. Conway and Simon B. Kochen,,,
    Since the free will theorem applies to any arbitrary physical theory consistent with the axioms, it would not even be possible to place the information into the universe’s past in an ad hoc way. The argument proceeds from the Kochen-Specker theorem, which shows that the result of any individual measurement of spin was not fixed (pre-determined) independently of the choice of measurements.
    http://www.informationphilosop.....eorem.html

    As well, with contextuality we find that, “In the quantum world, the property that you discover through measurement is not the property that the system actually had prior to the measurement process. What you observe necessarily depends on how you carried out the observation”

    Contextuality is ‘magic ingredient’ for quantum computing – June 11, 2012
    Excerpt: Contextuality was first recognized as a feature of quantum theory almost 50 years ago. The theory showed that it was impossible to explain measurements on quantum systems in the same way as classical systems.
    In the classical world, measurements simply reveal properties that the system had, such as colour, prior to the measurement. In the quantum world, the property that you discover through measurement is not the property that the system actually had prior to the measurement process. What you observe necessarily depends on how you carried out the observation.
    Imagine turning over a playing card. It will be either a red suit or a black suit – a two-outcome measurement. Now imagine nine playing cards laid out in a grid with three rows and three columns. Quantum mechanics predicts something that seems contradictory – there must be an even number of red cards in every row and an odd number of red cards in every column. Try to draw a grid that obeys these rules and you will find it impossible. It’s because quantum measurements cannot be interpreted as merely revealing a pre-existing property in the same way that flipping a card reveals a red or black suit.
    Measurement outcomes depend on all the other measurements that are performed – the full context of the experiment.
    Contextuality means that quantum measurements can not be thought of as simply revealing some pre-existing properties of the system under study. That’s part of the weirdness of quantum mechanics.
    http://phys.org/news/2014-06-w.....antum.html

    On top of all that, although there have been several major loopholes in quantum mechanics over the past several decades that atheists have tried to appeal to in order to try to avoid the ‘spooky’ Theistic implications of quantum mechanics, over the past several years each of those major loopholes have each been closed one by one. The last major loophole that was left to be closed was the “setting independence” and/or the ‘free-will’ loophole:

    Closing the ‘free will’ loophole: Using distant quasars to test Bell’s theorem – February 20, 2014
    Excerpt: Though two major loopholes have since been closed, a third remains; physicists refer to it as “setting independence,” or more provocatively, “free will.” This loophole proposes that a particle detector’s settings may “conspire” with events in the shared causal past of the detectors themselves to determine which properties of the particle to measure — a scenario that, however far-fetched, implies that a physicist running the experiment does not have complete free will in choosing each detector’s setting. Such a scenario would result in biased measurements, suggesting that two particles are correlated more than they actually are, and giving more weight to quantum mechanics than classical physics.
    “It sounds creepy, but people realized that’s a logical possibility that hasn’t been closed yet,” says MIT’s David Kaiser, the Germeshausen Professor of the History of Science and senior lecturer in the Department of Physics. “Before we make the leap to say the equations of quantum theory tell us the world is inescapably crazy and bizarre, have we closed every conceivable logical loophole, even if they may not seem plausible in the world we know today?”
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140220112515.htm

    And now Anton Zeilinger and company have recently, as of 2018, pushed the ‘free will loophole’ back to 7.8 billion years ago, thereby firmly establishing the ‘common sense’ fact that the free will choices of the experimenter in the quantum experiments are truly free and are not determined by any possible causal influences from the past for at least the last 7.8 billion years, and that the experimenters themselves are therefore shown to be truly free to choose whatever measurement settings in the experiments that he or she may so desire to choose so as to ‘logically’ probe whatever aspect of reality that he or she may be interested in probing.

    Cosmic Bell Test Using Random Measurement Settings from High-Redshift Quasars – Anton Zeilinger – 14 June 2018
    Abstract: In this Letter, we present a cosmic Bell experiment with polarization-entangled photons, in which measurement settings were determined based on real-time measurements of the wavelength of photons from high-redshift quasars, whose light was emitted billions of years ago; the experiment simultaneously ensures locality. Assuming fair sampling for all detected photons and that the wavelength of the quasar photons had not been selectively altered or previewed between emission and detection, we observe statistically significant violation of Bell’s inequality by 9.3 standard deviations, corresponding to an estimated p value of ? 7.4 × 10^21. This experiment pushes back to at least ? 7.8 Gyr ago the most recent time by which any local-realist influences could have exploited the “freedom-of-choice” loophole to engineer the observed Bell violation, excluding any such mechanism from 96% of the space-time volume of the past light cone of our experiment, extending from the big bang to today.
    https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.080403

    Thus regardless of how Steven Weinberg and other atheists may prefer the universe to behave, with the closing of the last remaining free will loophole in quantum mechanics, “humans are indeed brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level”, and thus these recent findings from quantum mechanics directly undermine, as Weinberg himself stated, the “vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.”

  119. 119
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover allowing free will and/or Agent causality into the laws of physics at their most fundamental level has some fairly profound implications for us personally.

    First and foremost, allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned,,,, (Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Max Planck, to name a few of the Christian founders),,, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands (with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), rightly allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”. Here are a few posts where I lay out and defend some of the evidence for that claim:

    November 2019 – despite the fact that virtually everyone, including the vast majority of Christians, hold that the Copernican Principle is unquestionably true, the fact of the matter is that the Copernican Principle is now empirically shown, (via quantum mechanics and general relativity, etc..), to be a false assumption.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/so-then-maybe-we-are-privileged-observers/#comment-688855

    (February 19, 2019) To support Isabel Piczek’s claim that the Shroud of Turin does indeed reveal a true ‘event horizon’, the following study states that ‘The bottom part of the cloth (containing the dorsal image) would have born all the weight of the man’s supine body, yet the dorsal image is not encoded with a greater amount of intensity than the frontal image.’,,,
    Moreover, besides gravity being dealt with, the shroud also gives us evidence that Quantum Mechanics was dealt with. In the following paper, it was found that it was not possible to describe the image formation on the Shroud in classical terms but they found it necessary to describe the formation of the image on the Shroud in discrete quantum terms.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/experiment-quantum-particles-can-violate-the-mathematical-pigeonhole-principle/#comment-673178

    The evidence for the Shroud’s authenticity keeps growing. (Timeline of facts) – November 08, 2019
    What Is the Shroud of Turin? Facts & History Everyone Should Know – Myra Adams and Russ Breault
    https://www.christianity.com/wiki/jesus-christ/what-is-the-shroud-of-turin.html

    To give us a small glimpse of the power that was involved in Christ’s resurrection from the dead, the following recent article found that, ”it would take 34 Thousand Billion Watts of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology.”

    Astonishing discovery at Christ’s tomb supports Turin Shroud – NOV 26TH 2016
    Excerpt: The first attempts made to reproduce the face on the Shroud by radiation, used a CO2 laser which produced an image on a linen fabric that is similar at a macroscopic level. However, microscopic analysis showed a coloring that is too deep and many charred linen threads, features that are incompatible with the Shroud image. Instead, the results of ENEA “show that a short and intense burst of VUV directional radiation can color a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin, including shades of color, the surface color of the fibrils of the outer linen fabric, and the absence of fluorescence”.
    ‘However, Enea scientists warn, “it should be noted that the total power of VUV radiations required to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height, body surface area equal to = 2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion watts makes it impractical today to reproduce the entire Shroud image using a single laser excimer, since this power cannot be produced by any VUV light source built to date (the most powerful available on the market come to several billion watts )”.
    Comment
    The ENEA study of the Holy Shroud of Turin concluded that it would take 34 Thousand Billion Watts of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology.
    http://westvirginianews.blogsp.....in-is.html

    Verse:

    Colossians 1:15-20
    The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

    Thus in conclusion, Sev’s denial of free will is a logically self-defeating position that undermines his entire atheistic worldview as to being a rationally coherent worldview. Moreover, his denial of free will is directly contradicted by recent empirical evidence from both neurology and quantum mechanics. Whereas, on the other hand, the Christian Theist is not only logically consistent with his belief in free will, but the Christian is also consistent with the empirical evidence itself (which is NOT a minor thing as far as science itself is concerned). And on top of everything else, the Christian’s belief that Jesus Christ is God incarnate is powerfully vindicated in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides a very plausible, empirically backed, solution, (via the Shroud of Turin), for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’.

    All in all, as far as science is concerned, I can certainly live very consistently and happily as a Christian Theist! Whereas, the atheist can live as, well, whatever ‘meat robots’ are supposedly predetermined to live as in their severely depressing, meaningless, purposeless, nihilistic universe.

    1 Corinthians 2:9
    However, as it is written: “What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived” — the things God has prepared for those who love him–

  120. 120
    Seversky says:

    Silver Asiatic @ 116

    Seversky

    How many billions have died over the whole of human history because it was left to ordinary human beings through plodding, dogged research to get just to where we are now? Why should that be?

    Because God gave us a chance to learn something new in every generation. The new findings have not stopped. Life on earth is an adventure – and along the way, we should find God

    In the first half of the 14th Century, people already living in what we would think of as squalid conditions began dying like flies. Somewhere between 30-60% of the entire population of Europe was wiped out by what they called the Black Death – what we now know as bubonic plague. At the time, they had no idea what caused it, let alone how to treat it. It would be over 500 years before human medical science developed the germ theory of disease, identified the bacterium responsible and designed drugs to treat it. At the time, all they could do was pray over loved ones dying horribly in front of them. Prayers that went unanswered. I seriously doubt if they thought life was an adventure and they found no sign of God.

    But as to “how many people have died”?
    I think all of them have so far, except for everybody living now. But they will die also.
    Why is that?

    I don’t know. Perhaps you should ask your God and then tell us what He has to say.

    Because life for humans on earth is temporary. It’s a testing, proving-ground.

    We put things to the test because we don’t know what the outcome will be. An omniscient God by definition knows all that there is to be known so He already knows in advance the outcome of any test you can possibly devise so there is no need for any “proving-ground”.

    Atheism has nothing to offer. It is utter nonsense.

    No, atheism cannot offer you what your religion does. It does not make such a claim. But the fact that your faith makes you feel better does not make it true.

    You seem to take pride in the fact that your view offers nothing but despair.

    No, I don’t take pride in it but it may be necessary to face up to the possibility that there is no God, at least in the way you envisage. It may do no good at all but, if it’s the case, isn’t it better to accept it?

    But even that is absolutely nothing. Materialism does not even give us a basis to evaluate anything as being true or false.

    Materialism gives us an objective reality against which we can measure the stories we create to try and explain it. To that extent we can evaluate what is more likely to be true or false and maybe that’s the best we can hope for.

  121. 121

    .

    Materialism gives us an objective reality against which we can measure the stories we create to try and explain it.

    Materialist ideologues made up a story that life can organize itself from non-life using nothing but the dynamic properties of matter. We then discovered that life is a description-based phenomenon; specified from memory using a system of discontinuous symbols and a multi-referent language structure, which are required to organize and achieve semantic closure, enabling life to persist over time. These things were predicted, and then experimentally confirmed inside the cell. Following that, the system was fully and carefully described using the language of physics, just as it was first predicted to be.

    In response to these historical facts, all you do is protect the dogma in every step you take. You can’t even acknowledge the details without attempting to dismiss them in the same breath. You really don’t need to be lecturing anyone about integrating “objective reality” Sev.

    You gave that position up long ago, and needn’t pretend otherwise.

  122. 122
    ET says:

    seversky:

    Materialism gives us an objective reality …

    Except for the fact that materialism is, in reality, a total non-starter. Atheism and materialism are nothing more than denials of reality.

  123. 123

    Now Kairosfocus, I am amused at this characterization of “objectivity”! What’s funny is how subjective this really is. As a reminder to anyone just now jumping in the fray, here is what you posted:

    Oh, try here for one Monod in a 1971 interview on his Chance and Necessity:

    [T]he scientific attitude implies what I call the postulate of objectivity—that is to say, the fundamental postulate that there is no plan, that there is no intention in the universe. Now, this is basically incompatible with virtually all the religious or metaphysical systems whatever, all of which try to show that there is some sort of harmony between man and the universe and that man is a product—predictable if not indispensable—of the evolution of the universe.— Jacques Monod [Quoted in John C. Hess, ‘French Nobel Biologist Says World Based On Chance’, New York Times (15 Mar 1971), p. 6. Cited in Herbert Marcuse, Counter-Revolution and Revolt (1972), p. 66.]

    Notice, the telling redefinition of objectivity.

    Try as I might, I just could not logically give materialistic, undirected, blind, random processes this much power.

    As a chemistry teacher, I have a lot of fun telling students how there is no such thing as fruitful “tri-molecular” interactions between particles. Fruitful chemical reactions occur through what is called a “bimolecular” process for the most part: that is, typically not more than two species of atoms/ molecules interact at any given time to yield products. And even then, the colliding particles have to hit one another at just the right orientation.

    It seems for life to have evolved as the consequence of blind, undirected processes, the tools that nature gives us for the assembling of atoms into molecules, molecules into macromolecules, and macromolecules into cell pathways, and cell pathways into actual cells, cells randomly organized into tissues, tissues ultimately forming organs and organ systems, are simply not there, if we are depending upon materialistic processes alone to accomplish all this. That would seem almost magical!

  124. 124
    kairosfocus says:

    EM, I intend to more completely respond to Monod, who won a Nobel Prize for work on DNA and cellular, molecular processes. So, he had to realise he was dealing with coded information and algorithmic information processing. In short, he should have recognised that he was dealing with language applied to information systems of high complexity. Language like that is a strong sign of design. What Monod did, was to suggest that it is somehow not scientific to infer design [i.e. that the cell showed signs of being the result of a project, “projective”] but instead only appeals to blind chance and mechanical necessity were “objective,” as opposed to reflecting the action of a subject, mind. Thus, frankly, he begged the question that there can be a valid, empirically grounded, logically cogent scientific study of signs of design, of the natural vs. the ART-ificial. That is in the background of all of the onward discussion. KF

  125. 125
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Seversky @ 120

    At the time, all they could do was pray over loved ones dying horribly in front of them. Prayers that went unanswered. I seriously doubt if they thought life was an adventure and they found no sign of God.

    We are still learning how to cure cancer, for example. People suffer and die. A true “adventure” is not sitting on a beach chair in the sunshine, drinking margaritas. The adventure of life is filled with difficulties to overcome. It is painful, challenging, confusing. God calls upon us to work on these issues, and every generation has problems to solve.
    But the Christian faith did not die under the circumstances of the plague. In fact, it increased and continued to grow in Europe. People did, in fact, find signs of God even in a disaster like that.
    The plague showed the courage and integrity of many good people who cared, not only for their own loved ones, but others in the community. Charles Borromeo (15th c), for example, “organized makeshift hospitals, used his own vast fortune to provide food for the hungry, and personally attended the poor and sick. He never contracted the plague and credited his generally healthy nature to a regular regimen of fasting and prayer.”

    The 14th century was marked with that kind of suffering, as you say. But people did find God within it. The Christian faith continued to grow in Europe. I did a little research on some of the great people, and came across St. Gertrude the Great, a woman of the 14th century who wrote some important works of theology which are still in print today — coincidentally, because today January 6 is her feast day. She lived during the plague. As did St. Catherine of Siena – stigmatist, theologian, social reformer. There were Christian geniuses that influenced all of Western civilization: Duns Scotus, Ramon Llull, Dante Alegheri, Meister Eckhart, Johannes Tauler. They contributed to faith and science, and they taught people in the midst of plague.

    You can point to suffering in human life in every era. You have to look at the sufferings of Christ, for what He intended. Redemptive suffering. Pain that one person offers for another, takes away evil and sin. That’s the way it works. We live on earth only a short number of years, no matter how long. It’s temporary.

    I don’t know. Perhaps you should ask your God and then tell us what He has to say.

    I could tell you a lot about what God has to say. But you have access to Him yourself also. Ask and you will receive. Seek and you will find.

    We put things to the test because we don’t know what the outcome will be.

    I can test my students and know for certain what the outcome will be.
    The test is not for me, in that case, but for them. They have a chance to show what they’ve done.
    For God it’s the same. We have a chance to show our integrity, our devotion, our commitment to the Truth. At the end, when we face the Judgement, we will see our life and how we faced the test. It’s not for the sake of God’s knowledge, but so that we would have to chance to offer something good. The testing of this life, is our chance to show our best, in the face of obstacles and difficulties. From this we can deserve a reward.
    Otherwise, we would not be able to gain or merit anything.

    No, atheism cannot offer you what your religion does. It does not make such a claim. But the fact that your faith makes you feel better does not make it true.

    My religion offers the possibility of finding the Truth. It’s not a question of feeling better. Atheism cannot offer access to the Truth about life. It cuts off all potential for that. It shuts off inquiry and does not even follow-up on evidence we already have for God. So, it’s a closed worldview. Religion offers much more. Seek first the kingdom of God. We can look for God and find Him.

    No, I don’t take pride in it but it may be necessary to face up to the possibility that there is no God, at least in the way you envisage. It may do no good at all but, if it’s the case, isn’t it better to accept it?

    If there was some rational argument that could indicate that there is no God then perhaps we could accept that possibility. But there is no such argument.

    Materialism gives us an objective reality against which we can measure the stories we create to try and explain it. To that extent we can evaluate what is more likely to be true or false and maybe that’s the best we can hope for.

    Materialism does not provide any objective reality that we can access. Matter alone, in that view, is the cause of everything. That is illogical in the first place, but even granting that idea — matter is blind and mindless. It has no meaning. So, if we are created by matter, then we are as mindless as our creator. There can be no truth or falsehood. Our thoughts are directed by something that has no mind. Our thoughts are illusions created by mindless, purposeless molecules. So, there cannot be anything objective here. Materialism cannot evaluate itself. It has no power to evaluate anything.

    Dawkins explained it well:

    In a universe of 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 we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

    Notice that he says that there is "no evil and no good". That is correct. There is nothing to measure, no objective standard. There is no truth or falsehood. It is blind, mindless, indifference.
    Matter just "is". There is nothing true or good, nothing false or evil. Hydrogen, carbon, oxygen … don't care about such things. They do not know anything. Whatever we think is in our mind, is really nothing. Molecules created us, and they know or care nothing about anything at all.

    But this leaves final causality unexplained.
    No world of physical things can even exist in principle unless there is a divine, uncaused cause which at every moment conserves them in being and imparts to them their causal power.
    Every physical component of the universe has existence and properties derived from some cause. They cannot possess those derived-aspects unless something exists which can impart properties and existence itself to them.

  126. 126
    john_a_designer says:

    When I was growing up my parents got to know a doctor who worked with the poor in Bangladesh– a so-called medical missionary. One incident that occurred during this man’s life has always stood out to me. It happened in the late 1960’s, when I was in high school. The clinic this doctor was working out of for some reason just got overwhelmed with Bengali’s seeking medical treatment (some had very serious conditions.) He and his staff had no choice but to turn people away knowing that many of them would die. It was during this period that Dr. K. had a massive heart attack. His friends said the circumstances literally broke his heart. However, miraculously, he didn’t die. His staff was somehow able to save his life.

    They then had him flown to Europe where he underwent surgery and then began rehabilitation.

    I remember having a discussion with some of the adults at our church after a special prayer meeting we had for Dr. K. One of the questions I heard them asking was, what was he going to do next? It seemed obvious to all of us that he couldn’t go back to his work. But after he recovered that’s what he did. That’s what he had to do. That was his calling.

    Three points:

    First, a lot of atheists use the so called argument from evil to argue against the existence of God, but they then turn a blind eye to the suffering around them. This man believed in God and that is what motivated him to do something about the suffering in the world. Who’s the hypocrite? It appears to me that atheist uses the so-called argument from evil as an excuse to do nothing about what they term “evil.”

    Second, if more people like Dr. K. existed we would be able to mitigate a lot more of the suffering that exists in the world. But if mitigating suffering is not really (objectively) good then why would anyone be obligated to do anything about it?

    And finally, if there is no such thing a moral truth* (objective moral values and obligations) as many atheists argue then Dr. K. was no more moral than Hugh Hefner who at the time was advancing the hedonistic playboy philosophy. According to atheistic materialism there is absolutely no moral difference between Hugh Hefner and Dr. K. They just made different freewill moral choices (ironically, using free will that the materialists say is just an illusion.) In fact from that perspective Dr. K. was a fool. He should have set up his medical practice here in the U.S. where he could have made a lot more money.

    (*Of course, if there are no objective values and obligations then there is no real evil– thus there is no problem of evil. Maybe that’s what our atheist interlocutors are really arguing.)

Leave a Reply