The above challenge has been thrown down, in rather intemperate language accompanied by more outing misbehaviour.
It is revelatory on the depth of ignorance cultivated by the imposed dominance of evolutionary materialism via its cat’s paw, so-called methodological naturalism, in science education.
First, as was pointed out in the post on Plato’s warning on the amorality and ruthless factionism of evolutionary materialism day before yesterday, Plato is one of the first to record the rise of evolutionary materialism as a worldview of origins and the nature of reality. In so doing, he plainly showed that the roots of such a view are philosophical rather than scientific, and in fact“evo mat” is thus shown to have the functionally equivalent status of a religion.
And yes, that means that the de facto establishment of evolutionary materialism in the public square and key institutions is tantamount to an undeclared establishment of the functional equivalent of a religion.
An issue that is already plainly of grave import.
We also need to understand that — Lewontin, Coyne, the US NAS and NSTA among many others notwithstanding — evolutionary materialism is not to be properly equated with “science,” it is but one of many possible worldviews for thoughtful people. And so, it must be able to stand on its own two legs in the teeth of comparative difficulties analysis. Including, on the challenge of grounding ethics by resolving the IS-OUGHT gap.
This is vital, as we all recognise that we have objective rights, which entail that we have duties to one another. As Arthur Holmes summarised:
If we admit that we all equally have the right to be treated as persons, then it follows that we have the duty to respect one another accordingly. Rights bring correlative duties: my rights . . . imply that you ought to respect these rights. [Ethics: Approaching Moral Decisions (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1984), p. 81.]
So, immediately we can be confident that since evolutionary materialism has in its foundations no IS capable of supporting OUGHT, it cannot ground basic moral facts such as rights, and so is grossly factually inadequate.
That alone is sufficient to disqualify evolutionary materialism as a worldview for a great many thoughtful people. It also sets the context in which we can see that some of these same people then can find good warrant for grounding their view of life in — at baseline level — a generic “Architect of the Cosmos” theism, that they may then build on in light of some tradition or another. (Cf. here.)
Including many scientists, starting with the likes of a Newton, or a Copernicus, or a Faraday or a Kelvin or a Pasteur and continuing down to today, including a significant number of Nobel Prize holders and other eminent scientists.
So, the atheistical assumption, boast and taunt — tracing to Dawkins — that those who reject evolutionary materialism thereby prove themselves to be ignorant and/or stupid, and/or insane and/or wicked, is unwarranted, and even bigoted. Similarly, Dawkins’ outrageous assertion that those who raise their children in a theistic tradition are guilty of child abuse is outrageous.
Such should be dropped at once, and apologised for.
As for “outing” and “expelling behaviour” . . . [Well, reread the Plato’s warning post]
However, that is not our main focus this morning.
(BREAK IN TRANSMISSION: We did need to mop up the mess left by some outrageous behaviour culminating in mafioso style threats against my family. And BTW, a lie is a calculated or willful deception, not in effect anything that “I” disagree with. An example of a lie is the false and unwarranted accusation that I am a child abuser; which in my jurisdiction, would properly warrant a slander or libel charge. Similarly, when one has been repeatedly corrected on it, to willfully insist that outing tactics culminating in we know you, we know where you are, and we know those you care for is not threatening behaviour, is tantamount to a lie. By contrast, to cite and expound on Plato’s expose of evolutionary materialism and resulting amorality and ruthless factionism, applying it to present circumstances is to teach corrective truth.)
Now, Plato identified key causal factors under the three key heads necessity [phusis, “nature”], chance and art [techne], which we will for instance find directly reflected in Monod’s famous Chance and Necessity:
[[The avant-garde philosophers, teachers and artists c. 400 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, and that as to the bodies which come next in order-earth, and sun, and moon, and stars-they have been created by means of these absolutely inanimate existences. The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them-of hot with cold, or of dry with moist, or of soft with hard, and according to all the other accidental admixtures of opposites which have been formed by necessity. After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and 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 . . .
As a bit of onward reading in The Laws, Bk X — or in this online discussion — would reveal, Plato, speaking in the voice of the Athenian Stranger (with a bit of help from Clenias), then went on to frame the central issue of design in worldview terms, actually making a cosmological design inference. So, we may clip:
Cle. But why is the word “nature” wrong?
[[ . . . .]
Ath. . . . when one thing changes another, and that another, of such will there be any primary changing element? How can a thing which is moved by another ever be the beginning of change? Impossible. But when the self-moved changes other, and that again other, and thus thousands upon tens of thousands of bodies are set in motion, must not the beginning of all this motion be the change of the self-moving principle? . . . . self-motion being the origin of all motions, and the first which arises among things at rest as well as among things in motion, is the eldest and mightiest principle of change, and that which is changed by another and yet moves other is second.
Ath. If we were to see this power existing in any earthy, watery, or fiery substance, simple or compound-how should we describe it?
Cle. You mean to ask whether we should call such a self-moving power life?
Ath. I do.
[[ . . . . ]
Cle. You mean to say that the essence which is defined as the self-moved is the same with that which has the name soul?
Ath. Yes; and if this is true, do we still maintain that there is anything wanting in the proof that the soul is the first origin and moving power of all that is, or has become, or will be, and their contraries, when she has been clearly shown to be the source of change and motion in all things?
Cle. Certainly not; the soul as being the source of motion, has been most satisfactorily shown to be the oldest of all things.
Ath. And is not that motion which is produced in another, by reason of another, but never has any self-moving power at all, being in truth the change of an inanimate body, to be reckoned second, or by any lower number which you may prefer?
[[ . . . . ]
Ath. If, my friend, we say that the whole path and movement of heaven, and of all that is therein, is by nature akin to the movement and revolution and calculation of mind, and proceeds by kindred laws, then, as is plain, we must say that the best soul takes care of the world and guides it along the good path. [[Plato here explicitly sets up an inference to design (by a good soul) from the intelligible order of the cosmos.]
In short, Plato argues from the complex, beautiful, orderly functional organisation of the cosmos to its source in an intelligent agent, and that the careful organisation points to a good soul as that mind, guiding the cosmos along the good path. He roots this in a first discussion that rejects the notion of an infinite succession of blind material causes — and BTW (for those inclined to dismiss Plato), how does one traverse the infinite successively, step by step? — and points instead to a first cause, the self-moved, that when embodied we would term life, with a particular reference to intelligent, choosing, purposing life.
In doing so, he raises a very interesting turnabout: could it not instead be said that the real “nature” that goes on by itself is the good soul and architect of the cosmos, and that the rest, from the heavens to the earth and all that dwell in it, are the product of art?
Remember, we are not here discussing holy writ by a claimed prophet; we are looking at one of the first rank thinkers of all time, deeply reflecting on the implications of what he finds are key facts: blind succession of cause are not where we can find the first cause in the chain.
The self-moved, initiating cause that is usually termed “life” when we see it, especially intelligent, en-souled life.
The intelligible organisation of the cosmos calls for an explanation on such cause, in what we may term — Platonists, Thomists and others thinking about Plato’s Craftsman [Demiurge], forgive me, we are not able to go on to walking (much less running) yet, we must help those who have long needed to learn the rudiments of creeping first — a “Cosmic Architect. ”
Now, we may disagree with Plato, and with those who think in related ways that may be distinct in important ways, e.g. Plato, at least nominally, was a pagan [nb, his subtle disclaimers at the head of this discussion make that “nominally” a potentially key word]. But, we must learn some basic respect: such a manner of thinking is not to be dismissed, or derided and caricatured in ugly ways.
To further underscore my point, here is Newton in his — again, suspiciously neglected — General Scholium to Principia:
. . . This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems: and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he hath placed those systems at immense distances one from another.
This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God pantokrator , or Universal Ruler . . . And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done . . . [.]
Every man, so far as he is a thing that has perception, is one and the same man during his whole life, in all and each of his organs of sense. God is the same God, always and every where. He is omnipresent not virtually only, but also substantially; for virtue cannot subsist without substance. In him are all things contained and moved [i.e. cites Ac 17, where Paul evidently cites Cleanthes]; yet neither affects the other: God suffers nothing from the motion of bodies; bodies find no resistance from the omnipresence of God. It is allowed by all that the Supreme God exists necessarily; and by the same necessity he exists always, and every where. [i.e accepts the cosmological argument to God.] Whence also he is all similar, all eye, all ear, all brain, all arm, all power to perceive, to understand, and to act; but in a manner not at all human, in a manner not at all corporeal, in a manner utterly unknown to us. As a blind man has no idea of colours, so have we no idea of the manner by which the all-wise God perceives and understands all things. He is utterly void of all body and bodily figure, and can therefore neither be seen, nor heard, or touched; nor ought he to be worshipped under the representation of any corporeal thing. [Cites Exod 20.] We have ideas of his attributes, but what the real substance of any thing is we know not. In bodies, we see only their figures and colours, we hear only the sounds, we touch only their outward surfaces, we smell only the smells, and taste the savours; but their inward substances are not to be known either by our senses, or by any reflex act of our minds: much less, then, have we any idea of the substance of God. We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final cause [i.e from his designs]: we admire him for his perfections; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion: for we adore him as his servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and Nature. Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and every where, could produce no variety of things. [i.e necessity does not produce contingency] All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing. [That is, implicitly rejects chance, Plato’s third alternative and explicitly infers to the Designer of the Cosmos.] . . . [.]
And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearances of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy.
In short, Newton’s thought is clearly hebraic and related to Plato’s ideas, and he infers from the intelligible, functional, complex organisation of the observed cosmos to its source in an intelligent, necessary being whose word is the law of the cosmos that men discover. Indeed, he actually holds that to discourse upon that Architect in light of the appearances of things is a legitimate act within natural philosophy; the older name for especially the physical sciences. That is, it is the worldview right of the scientist to look up from his observations and calculations, and to reflect soberly on what lies behind the wonderful order and beauty he sees.
With that history of ideas in mind, and with the sobering considerations already on the table, it is plainly time for a serious re-think on how these sorts of themes are being treated in our civilisation today. And, particularly, we should reflect on the role being played by ruthless factions that have set out to shout down and intimidate any and all who would dare think out side of their preferred evolutionary materialist box.
Then, we should have the courage to think for ourselves, and to take a bold stance, exposing those who would impose worldviews censorship on science, science education and science-related public policy. END