Which is worse?

_{January 9, 2012

Intelligent Design}

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

Who makes the greater error, he/she who wrongly believes that the world is only 6-10 thousand years old, or he/she who wrongly believes the world is just an accident of physics and chemistry?

Comments

The Godwin tactics are being used by kf and others against atheists and people who accept evolutionary theory. They are not responsible for the crimes of either Hitler or Stalin. Please stop alleging that they are.Elizabeth Liddle_{January 13, 2012
January
01
Jan
13
13
2012
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT}

No.Elizabeth Liddle_{January 13, 2012
January
01
Jan
13
13
2012
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT}

KF, Re 16.1.2.3.2 I absolutely agree on this. If I wanted to write about it, I'd have written the same words. The only addition is that one of the heaviest weapons used against attempts at serious deliberations about this whole thing is derision or what I call Godwin tactics. Mock it, and you are safe from very revealing parallels being raised. I just feel on this one increasingly that I should let the dead bury their dead.Eugene S_{January 13, 2012
January
01
Jan
13
13
2012
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth, if one were targeted by the Soviet League of Atheists would one be impressed by the distinction that one was being persecuted in the name of a political philosophy rather than in the name of atheism?Jon Garvey_{January 13, 2012
January
01
Jan
13
13
2012
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT}

PPS: It is also evident that you have not read me with care, I have nowhere said that Hitler acted in the name of ATHEISM.
And nor have I said you said that. I don't think you have read me with care, either. I have been consistently trying to make the simple point that many atrocities have been committed in the name of religion. I am not aware of atrocities that have been committed in the name of atheism although I fully accept that some political philosphies have been specifically atheistic, and certainly atrocities have been committed in the name of those political philosphies. Therefore, I hold to my (amended) claim that atheists are not necessarily amoral. I hope you agree. If so, we are done.Elizabeth Liddle_{January 13, 2012
January
01
Jan
13
13
2012
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT}

PPS: It is also evident that you have not read me with care, I have nowhere said that Hitler acted in the name of ATHEISM. I have been very, very careful to NOT make that elementary blunder at any point, for years. If you see others saying this of me, they are setting up a strawman. He acted as an evident neo-pagan, in the tradition of militarism, and in the name of the Aryan "master race" man myth championed by many, but especially by Blavatsky et al and of course by Rosenberg etc -- a myth symbolised by that infamous twisted broken cross known as the swastika -- through a form of dominant race social darwinism. It is the history of ideas dynamics and the associated undermining of sound morality driven by that toxic brew in Germany that -- via a perfect political and economic storm post Versailles and in the aftermath of the hyperinflation that gave rise to desperation for a political messiah -- gave rise to Hitler's madness and demonic Antichrist destructiveness. (I take it that the poster I have highlighted is enough to finish the lies spread by Evil Bible et al that Hitler was a Christian acting out of the tenets and examples of his faith. He was -- openly blasphemously -- of the spirit of Antichrist, not that of Christ. Period.) I am indicting social darwinism and scientific racism and eugenics too, which were and are much wider than evolutionary materialism, but which were organically linked to the power of Darwinism as "science" and to the worldview ideas that it enables as agendas on the ground. It is this toxic brew that led to the notion that mass slaughter of peoples who were perceived as inferiors cumbering the ground to be removed to provide lebensraum, gained the persuasive power that it had in that time and place, in a climate of radical cultural and even racial relativism. Don't forget the defence of war crimes on relativism offered at Nuremberg! So, kindly correct that misrepresentation. Going beyond, I am also from this angle pointing to the abundant evidence suppressed through a priori materialism imposed on science, that shows that the actual evidence points to design of the cosmos, and of C-chemistry aqueous medium life in it. It points also to design of body plans, including our own with the unique ability to use symbolic, abstract language. In short the science does not warrant darwinian macroevolution, but the imposition of materialism as an a priori is biassing science from being able to go where the weight of the facts points. That same evolutionary materialism is also logically self-refuting, as I have so often pointed out, let Haldane's clip summarise the matter:
"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms." [["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209.]
Further than this, as Plato has warned on what happened to Athens 2400 years ago, such evo mat leads to radical relativism, the rise of might makes right amorality and nihilism, to factions and to abuse and oppression. Once the power elites climate is poisoned and polarised bysuch a toxic brew, it matters but little whether as particular individual or faction are nominally atheistical, communist, nazi, statist-fascist, nanny-state, occultic-neopagan [Don't forget the court astrologer!] or even nominally Christian -- don't forget that organisation studies show us that the ruthless with a high need for power tend to dominate in any power structure, so dangerous trends in the wider community tend strongly to be amplified in halls of power. In short, by various means, the poison will strongly tend to have its way unless the system is purged of it. And, that is what we need to do now in our own time and place. So, kindly correct your material misrepresentation of what I have said.kairosfocus_{January 13, 2012
January
01
Jan
13
13
2012
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT}

Are you familiar with the facts, historical roots and thought-structure of Marxism Leninism and Maoism, as well as Nazism?
Yes. But you are still massively missing my point.Elizabeth Liddle_{January 13, 2012
January
01
Jan
13
13
2012
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT}

PS: I strongly suggest that all who need to make acquainntance of the intellectual currents at work in Germany in the relevant era should take time to watch the Weikart lecture embedded here. There comes a point where attempted dismissive or distractive talking points are failing in the face of a duty of care to the cumulative force of evident facts such as a re presented in this lecture in summary.kairosfocus_{January 13, 2012
January
01
Jan
13
13
2012
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT}

Dr Liddle: Are you familiar with the facts, historical roots and thought-structure of Marxism Leninism and Maoism, as well as Nazism? Your remarks suggest not. I therefore ask you to try to understand what Dialectical and Historical Materialism are and what they embed as a foundational premise, and how this leads to the sort of nihilism by dominant and amoral factions that Plato warned about. In the case of the late and utterly unlamented herr Schicklegruber and co, kindly acquaint yourself with the story of Haeckel et al and their influence on German thought. Then, understand how this mixed with German militarism and Nietzschean nihilism in the rape of Belgium; as Bryan testified to as the responsible US Secretary of State 1913 - 15. (Did you ever wonder why a former pacifist Secretary of State and four time US Presidential candidate would devote his final years to fighting Darwinism, actually writing a book on "The Menace of Darwinism"?) Let me pause and clip his remarks on the subject from this book:
The question in dispute is whether atheists and agnostics have a right to teach irreligion in public schools — whether teachers drawing salaries from the public treasury shall be permitted to undermine belief in God, the Bible, and Christ by teaching not scientific truth but unproven and unsupported guesses which cannot be true unless the Bible is false [[pp. 5 - 6] . . . . On page 180 of ''Descent of Man" (Hurst & Company, Edition 1874), Darwin says: "Our most ancient progenitors in the kingdom of the Vertebrata, at which we are able to obtain an obscure glance, apparently consisted of a group of marine animals, resembling the larvae of the existing Ascidians." Then he suggests a line of de-scent leading to the monkey . . . His second sentence (fol-lowing the sentence quoted) turns upon the word "probably" . . . His works are full of words indicating uncertainty. The phrase "we may well suppose," occurs over eight hundred times in his two principal works. (See Herald & Presbyter, November 22, 1914.) The eminent scientist is guess-ing . . . . Darwin does not use facts ; he uses conclusions drawn from similarities. He builds upon presumptions, probabilities and infer-ences, and asks the acceptance of his hypothesis "not-withstanding the fact that connecting links have not hitherto been discovered" (page 162). He advances an hypothesis which, if true, would find support on every foot of the earth's surface, but which, as a mat-ter of fact finds support nowhere . . . . Science has rendered invaluable service to society; her achievements are innumerable—and the hypotheses of scientists should be considered with an open mind. Their theories should be carefully examined and their arguments fairly weighed, but the scientist cannot compel acceptance of any argument he advances, ex-cept as, judged upon its merits, it is convincing. Man is infinitely more than science; science, as well as the Sabbath, was made for man . . . [[pp. 19 – 22; emphases added.] Darwinism leads to a denial of God. Nietzsche carried Darwinism to its logical conclusion and it made him the most extreme of anti-Christians . . . . As the [[First World] war [[of 1914 - 1918] progressed I [[Bryan was from 1913 - 1915 the 41st US Secretary of State, under President Wilson] became more and more impressed with the conviction that the German propa-ganda rested upon a materialistic foundation. I se-cured the writings of Nietzsche and found in them a defense, made in advance, of all the cruelties and atrocities practiced by the militarists of Germany. [[It didn't start with the Nazis!] Nietzsche tried to substitute the worship of the "Su-perman" for the worship of God. He not only re-jected the Creator, but he rejected all moral standards. He praised war and eulogized hatred because it led to war. He denounced sympathy and pity as attributes unworthy of man. He believed that the teachings of Christ made degenerates and, logical to the end, he regarded Democracy as the refuge of weaklings. He saw in man nothing but an animal and in that animal the highest virtue he recognized was "The Will to Power"—a will which should know no let or hin-drance, no restraint or limitation . . . . His philosophy, if it is worthy the name of philos-ophy, is the ripened fruit of Darwinism — and a tree is known by its fruit . . . . The corroding influence of Darwinism has spread as the doctrine has been increasingly accepted. In the American preface to "The Glass of Fashion" these words are to be found: "Darwinism not only justifies the sensualist at the trough and Fashion at her glass; it justifies Prussianism at the cannon's mouth and Bol-shevism at the prison-door. If Darwinism be true, if Mind is to be driven out of the universe and accident accepted as a sufficient cause for all the majesty and glory of physical nature, then there is no crime or vio-lence, however abominable in its circumstances and however cruel in its execution, which cannot be justi-fied by success, and no triviality, no absurdity of Fash-ion which deserves a censure: more — there is no act of disinterested love and tenderness, no deed of self- sac-rifice and mercy, no aspiration after beauty and excel-lence, for which a single reason can be adduced in logic." [[pp. 52 - 54. Emphases and explanatory parentheses added.]
Then, understand that a certain Austrian corporal served in that area, was steeped int eh propaganda, explicitly approved of the sort of things that were done to Belgians. Then, understand that what happened when he was Fuhrer was simply the rape of Belgium writ large, with the slaughter of the Jews added in. Please, think again. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{January 13, 2012
January
01
Jan
13
13
2012
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT}

Dr Liddle: At this point, having to deal with one of the UD penumbra of objectors who has violated confidence of correspondence, I am a little low on patience, so pardon my directness. You, long since, have read or should have read Plato in The Laws Bk X. That will make it crystal clear that evolutionary materialism is a longstanding worldview that used to wear the philosopher's cloak. Nowadays, it likes to wear the scientist's lab coat, and is often imposed as an a priori on the science. Listen, again, to Lewontin, understanding that on five telling witnesses, he is speaking about the dominant view in scientific circles:
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [[--> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute . . .
NOTHING can ever justify that, period. (And if you insist on trying, cf the remarks notes and links from the just above linked.) And, judging by the letter of Darwin to Marx's son in law, as already cited, that was so right from the beginning of the story of Darwinism. So, let Philip Johnson's rebuke stand as mine as well:
For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [[Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [[Emphasis added.] [[The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]
The worldviews level imposition is not a debatable claim, it is a demonstrable fact, and a telling admission by those who I have cited and many others. The issue is not whether science has been ideologically corrupted by a priori evolutrionary materialism, the issue is what we will do to face this and deal with it, correcting the absurdities that flow from it. Not to mention, the horrendously abusive and bloody nihilism that it has enabled over the past 100 years, as those 100+ million ghosts remind us. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{January 13, 2012
January
01
Jan
13
13
2012
05:02 AM
5
05
02
AM
PDT}

I am simply saying, kf, that Lenin et al were not justifying their acts by atheism. And Hitler, as you well know, was not an atheist. Religion, on the other hand, has been explicitly used to justify torture and genocide for millenia. So even if you were correct, and you are not, that communist tyrants justified their actions by atheism, it would still not entitle you to claim that atheism is more evil than religion. There are many reasons why people commit atrocities. All justification is spurious. When I hear you condemn the atrocities committed by religious fanatics in the name of their god, I may take more seriously your allegation that Hitler committed genocide in the name of atheism.Elizabeth Liddle_{January 13, 2012
January
01
Jan
13
13
2012
01:11 AM
1
01
11
AM
PDT}

You may find my post "disappointing" kf, but that's your problem, not mine. As I said, I am not interested in trading atrocities. If atheism is used to justify atrocities, then I will condemn that use. If religion is jused to justify atrocities, then I will condemn that too.Elizabeth Liddle_{January 13, 2012
January
01
Jan
13
13
2012
12:58 AM
12
12
58
AM
PDT}

kf, no, I do not "know" this from Provine. Provine is entitled to his view, but although I "know" his view, I do not "know" that his view is correct. I think it's a load of rubbish.
Darwinism has ALWAYS been in material part about worldview and cultural agendas, even when it dresses up in the holy lab coat and calls itself strictly a scientific endeavour with no moral or metaphysical commitments.
And it's this kind of lazy language that constantly gets in the way here. "Darwinism" is simply a word. What does it refer to? Depends who is using it. Sure, some people use it to denote a "worldview and cultural agendas" but I'd argue that most of those who do are anti-Darwinists. In fact I know of very few people who use the word at all, unless they are anti-Darwinists. If there are indeed people who have constructed a "world vew and cultural agenda" and called it "Darwinism", shame on them. It's as silly as "Quantumism" would be. But it has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of evolutionary theory as a scientific theory, and Darwin's evolutionary theory only has relevant to any "worldview" inasmuch as it, like most scientific theories, replaces magical thinking with a set of causal explanations. We do not condemn "Keplerism" for undoing the "worldview" that God holds the planets in their courses; why should we condemn "Darwinism" for undoing the "worldview" that God magicked us into existence? Neither view invalidates the idea that God is the ground of our being; neither view invalidates the idea that God sometimes intervenes miraculously in the world. If Provine thinks so, that's his problem. Yes, ideas have consequences, as the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki found out in August, 1946. But that does not make Einstein wrong, any more than eugenics makes Darwin wrong. Not that eugenics has anything to do with Darwin anyway. People have been using artificial selection to breed plants and animals for millenia. Applying it to humans as a moral principle is despicable, but has nothing to do with Darwin. kf, while I respect, truly, your sincerity on this matter, I think you are profoundly mistaken. Attempting to align a scientific theory with a largely imagined "worldview", then ascribing not only that "worldview" but the crimes of tyrants to anyone who accepts the validity of the scientific theory is divisive, and dangerous. It's the kind of thinking that led to Galileo's condemnation and the atrocity that was Giordano Bruno's death. The enlightenment rescued us from a world in which scientific ideas were evaluated for their philosophical and religious implications to one in which they were evaluated by their fit to evidence. Provine and you are making the same mistake.Elizabeth Liddle_{January 13, 2012
January
01
Jan
13
13
2012
12:53 AM
12
12
53
AM
PDT}

Those most certainly define a philosophical and cultural agenda, with metaphysical and ethical implications prominent in the frame of thought.
Yes they do, and I could quote your own words about 'evo materialism' at someone else and use it to claim that Darwinism was about materialism, that doesn't mean it is true, it just means that you believe it and like to talk about it a lot. The fact is that biologists, paleontologists etc do not consider evolution to be a philosophical worldview because they understand that is is a scientific theory, what it describes, and where it ends. They are not evo materialists, they are scientists (and they are also Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews and atheists) Now I have no doubt that you will reply to this with a diatribe where you imply that I am lying, distorting, engaging in ad hom attacks and generally contributing to the destruction of society. Standard tactics for a fanatical ideologue!
In short, Darwinism has ALWAYS been in material part about worldview and cultural agendas
This is NOT true KF and no amount of semantic vomiting on your part will change it, it is a paranoid conspiracy fantasy that exists in your head!GCUGreyArea_{January 13, 2012
January
01
Jan
13
13
2012
12:30 AM
12
12
30
AM
PDT}

Dr Liddle: Pardon that which will doubtless be painful, but I think I have reason to be insistent. Again, kindly tell us what the 100+ million ghosts of the past 100 years have to say, in light of the issues and implications on naturalistic Evolutionism implied by what Provine raised in his 1998 Darwin Day address, and in light of his allusion to what Darwin knew, given the letter of Darwin from 1880 that is also cited. Are you willing to assert that the likes of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc as well as the neopagan/Antichristian Schicklegruber and co had not thought through what they were putting their hands to? Why then did this last in his infamous 1925 book make comparisons to the attitudes of foxes to geese, and cats to mice (on the premise of a law of higher development in nature and linked a struggle for survival that leads to extinction of the inferiors . . . why does the book enfold "struggle" in its title. in that light?), in further light of say the history of Poland between 1939 September 1 and May 1945? What do the 3 million Jewish ghosts and 3 million (I went back and checked) predominantly Catholic ghosts in question -- about half each of the Jewish and non-Jewish sides of the infamous Holocaust [leaving off the dozens of millions dead and a continent devastated in the wider war] and about 1/5 of Poland's population as at about Aug 31, 1939 -- have to say on the matter? KFkairosfocus_{January 12, 2012
January
01
Jan
12
12
2012
10:55 PM
10
10
55
PM
PDT}

Dr Liddle, the above is quite disappointing, as you well know what the 100+ million ghosts form the past 100 years have to say. And, again, kindly cf 15.1.2.4 just above. KFkairosfocus_{January 12, 2012
January
01
Jan
12
12
2012
10:43 PM
10
10
43
PM
PDT}

Dr Liddle, kindly cf 15.1.2.4 just above, on this.kairosfocus_{January 12, 2012
January
01
Jan
12
12
2012
10:39 PM
10
10
39
PM
PDT}

Dr Liddle: You know, or should know this, from prof Provine:
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent . . . . [[Evolution: Free Will and Punishment and Meaning in Life, Second Annual Darwin Day Celebration Keynote Address, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, February 12, 1998 (abstract).]
Those most certainly define a philosophical and cultural agenda, with metaphysical and ethical implications prominent in the frame of thought. And, maybe you don't know this Oct 13, 1880 letter from the pen of Darwin to Karl Marx's Son in Law:
. . . though I am a strong advocate for free thought [--> NB: free-thought is an old synonym for skepticism, agnosticism or atheism] on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men’s minds, which follows from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science. I may, however, have been unduly biassed by the pain which it would give some members of my family [--> NB: especially his wife, Emma], if I aided in any way direct attacks on religion . . .
This is as plain as can be on the worldview and cultural agendas that served as a partial motive for Darwin's scientific work, writings and advocacy. In short, Darwinism has ALWAYS been in material part about worldview and cultural agendas, even when it dresses up in the holy lab coat and calls itself strictly a scientific endeavour with no moral or metaphysical commitments. So, we need to think without blinkers on, and we have a worldview right and responsibility to look at that wider context. As the ghosts of 100+ million victims of those consequences also tell us. Yes, Darwin would have been horrified to witness the results, but that does not make those cultural and historical consequences of the dominance of the agenda just outlined go away. Regardless of how angrily dismissive names like Haeckel or Schicklegruber, or terms like Eugenics and Social Darwinism make some of the more enthusiastic advocates of Darwinism. Ideas have consequences, and if we are responsible and educated people we need to soberly ponder that, even when it is quite uncomfortable to do so. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{January 12, 2012
January
01
Jan
12
12
2012
10:36 PM
10
10
36
PM
PDT}

Gil: Def'n of nihilism, Collins Engl Dict:
nihilism [?na???l?z?m] n 1. a complete denial of all established authority and institutions 2. (Philosophy) Philosophy an extreme form of scepticism that systematically rejects all values, belief in existence, the possibility of communication, etc. 3. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a revolutionary doctrine of destruction for its own sake 4. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the practice or promulgation of terrorism [from Latin nihil nothing + -ism, on the model of German Nihilismus]
In the Plato clip from The Laws Bk X I have so often highlighted from 2350 years ago -- cf 7 above -- and which is consistently ducked by those who object to our concerns about where evolutionary materialism [as imposed on science as an a priori and as extended across the culture] is leading our civilisaton, this is boiled down as follows:
[[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 . . . . [[T]hese people would say that the Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and 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. (Cf. here for Locke's views and sources on a very different base for grounding liberty as opposed to license and resulting anarchistic "every man does what is right in his own eyes" chaos leading to tyranny.)] 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 leads to the promotion of amorality], 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; cf. dramatisation here], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others [[such amoral factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless tyranny; here, too, Plato hints at the career of Alcibiades], and not in legal subjection to them . . .
That anticipation of Nietzsche's nihilism is the best definition I have found. THOSE are the matches we are playing with. It also highlights exactly why we all have serious reason to be concerned about eh imposition of a priori materialism on the domain of science, the dominant cultural "knowledge" institution in our time. And 100 million ghosts from the past 100 years warn us on what is at stake. As we all know or should know. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{January 12, 2012
January
01
Jan
12
12
2012
10:20 PM
10
10
20
PM
PDT}

Cabal, Pardon. By now, as a long time commenter at UD, you know or should know that the pivot of the inference to design is the identification of well tested, empirically reliable signs of design such as FSCO/I or the wider CSI, IC, the use of coded language and algorithms etc etc; where when we can directly independently check we consistently see that these things trace to design. I therefore must wonder at your persistent refusal to acknowledge this point, even at the level of this is what the other side argues, and has some reason, even if I in the end disagree. If we have good inductive warrant that there are credible signs of design, then it is at least a reasonable position to inductively hold per empirically supported inference that those signs point beyond to design as cause in cases where we do not happen to know the cause directly. Is this not, in essence the pivot of the whole project of scientific investigations of the deep past beyond direct observation? By contrast, when we see the number of circularities etc that are implicated in geodating schemes and the like, one has reasonable cause to suspend final judgement, acknowledging the conventional timeline as such, but noting its limitations. I for one have a lot more confidence in cosmological and/or stellar recontructions of the past, starting with H-ball models and the associated dynamics, with the general and specific star cluster H-R diagrams. (Cf here on if you are willing to read without jaundiced blinkers and will avoid setting up and knocking over strawmen.) There is such a thing as differing degrees of warrant for knowledge claims, especially when we begin to contrast the current scene with the remote and unobserved past of origins. KFkairosfocus_{January 12, 2012
January
01
Jan
12
12
2012
10:05 PM
10
10
05
PM
PDT}

LYO: Before I forget: Theistic theology, of whatever flavour, generally acknowledges that all morally accountable people will stand and give an account before God. A key premise in that, is what have you done with the light you have had or should have had. And, as C S Lewis was fond of highlighting, by our typical and indeed all but universal behaviour when we quarrel -- we expect and acknowledge conformity to standards of fairness etc, we show our instinctive consciousness of mutually being under moral governance and accountability. For all the fancy footwork speculations as to how we are not under objective moral standards, our actual behaviour betrays the truth. Paul of Tarsus aptly picks this up in Rom 2 & 13:
Rm 2:1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth . . . . 5 But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 God “will give to each person according to what he has done.”[a] 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger . . . . 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the [Mosaic] law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15 since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God will judge men’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares. Rm 13: 8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. 9 The [Mosaic] commandments, “Do not commit adultery,” “Do not murder,” “Do not steal,” “Do not covet,”[a] and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”[b] 10 Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
So, we see the principles here: core morality is written in our hearts through the recognition of mutual moral worth, in the Biblical tradition, as we recognise that we are not just equal but equally made in God's image. This is what Locke referred to when, in grounding the principles of liberty in his 2nd essay on civil Gov't, Ch 2, he cited "the judicious [Richard] Hooker":
. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [[Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [[Eccl. Polity,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80]
In short, we all have enough candle-light to conduct our business by. This, Locke picks up in sect 5 of his Introduction to his essay on human understanding:
Men have reason to be well satisfied with what God hath thought fit for them, since he hath given them (as St. Peter says [NB: i.e. 2 Pet 1:2 - 4]) pana pros zoen kaieusebeian, whatsoever is necessary for the conveniences of life and information of virtue; and has put within the reach of their discovery, the comfortable provision for this life, and the way that leads to a better. How short soever their knowledge may come of an universal or perfect comprehension of whatsoever is, it yet secures their great concernments [Prov 1: 1 - 7], that they have light enough to lead them to the knowledge of their Maker, and the sight of their own duties [cf Rom 1 - 2, Ac 17, etc, etc]. Men may find matter sufficient to busy their heads, and employ their hands with variety, delight, and satisfaction, if they will not boldly quarrel with their own constitution, and throw away the blessings their hands are filled with, because they are not big enough to grasp everything . . . It will be no excuse to an idle and untoward servant [Matt 24:42 - 51], who would not attend his business by candle light, to plead that he had not broad sunshine. The Candle that is set up in us [Prov 20:27] shines bright enough for all our purposes . . . If we will disbelieve everything, because we cannot certainly know all things, we shall do muchwhat as wisely as he who would not use his legs, but sit still and perish, because he had no wings to fly.
So, now, let us zoom in on Rom 2:6 - 8:
Rm 2:6 God “will give to each person according to what he has done.”[a] 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger . . .
I have highlighted the principle of judgement by light, light indicated by how we expect to be treated by our fellow human beings, but ever so often fail to "reciprocate in advance," as Hooker so aptly highlights. And of course the Golden Rule is right there at the pivot of all this -- the self same that we have seen many trapped in systems that imply anything but the GR, wish to live by when they are asked, what moral pivot you would use. In that context, we easily enough see the principle of judgement by the light of access to the truth or the right we have or should have: what have we persistently done in light of our "reasonable" expectations of others, however stumblingly, and how have we handled our [inevitably, all too many . . . ] points of failure? So, the issue then is not so much, what does God do to those who have no reasonable access to relevant truth and warrant for it [e.g. that concerning Jesus of Nazareth, cf here on in context and here on for starters], but how have we responded to the truth and the right we know or should know. And, of course, that also deals with the painful but vital truths revealed by our experience of moral struggle and failure; the "bad news" that opens our hearts -- if we are willing and have access -- to the "good news." So, your answer is that, scripturally, God is quite fair -- even, generous and gracious -- and knows well enough how to deal with those who have not had access to truth and have therefore not REJECTED it and chosen to instead live by evil in that regard. The real challenge is different: "To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life . . . " I take it that this tells us that God will welcome with open arms, those who have penitently and persistently struggled towards the light, however stumblingly. It is those who "are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil," who -- for excellent reason -- will face Divine disappointment. (And BTW, this concept that the road to wrath is formed of self-seeking refusal to squarely face the test of life in light of what one knows or should know, defines me theologically as a "moderate inclusivist," one of the points that was twisted by the owner of the hate site and used to attack me. But, inter alia, this view and reading means that all sorts of people of all sorts of creedal backgrounds or of no particular creedal background, who persistently join in the sincere struggle to the truth and the right -- the light -- that they did have access to, will be welcomed with open arms by God. BUT, LET US NOT FOOL OURSELVES, THIS HOLDS OUT NO COMFORT WHATSOEVER TO THOSE OF US WHO TURN AWAY FROM THE TRUTH AND THE RIGHT WE KNOW OR SHOULD KNOW, AS LOCKE SO APTLY HIGHLIGHTS.) So, let us all soberly ask ourselves and each other: based on reasonable and non self serving principles of warrant (i.e. we must show selective hyperskepticism the door), what is the truth and what is the right that we know or should -- a key and searching word -- know? I trust this is helpful. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{January 12, 2012
January
01
Jan
12
12
2012
09:45 PM
9
09
45
PM
PDT}

Liz,
There is no “Darwinian philosophy”
Of course there is, and it's transparently obvious: Everything must be explained in purely materialistic terms -- the evidence be damned.GilDodgen_{January 12, 2012
January
01
Jan
12
12
2012
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT}

religious affiliation is very different from serious religious involvement
Yes, just as atheism is very different from not having thought out it much and cared less.Elizabeth Liddle_{January 12, 2012
January
01
Jan
12
12
2012
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT}

Evolutionary materialism, a worldview, has long been seen as having in it no IS that can ground OUGHT, beyond “might makes right.” This has been pointed out ever since Plato in The Laws, Bk X, 360 BC. If atheists who adopt evolutionary materialism wish to make moral claims with a greater force than “might and manipulation make “right” . . . ” then let them provide an IS tracing to matter, energy, space, time, chance and blind mechanical necessity, that can objectively ground OUGHT. Or else, they are simply seeking to use moral sentiments that simply reflect the consensus of key factions in a community at a given time. Which boils down to “might and manipulation make ‘right’ . . . ” KF
No. With respect, KF you are wrong here, on many counts. Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory not a worldview. Atheism and theism are both perfectly compatible with evolutionary theory. Atheism is perfectly compatible with morality, and it is perfectly possible to derive an ethical system, and a moral imperative, without postulating a god or gods. Moreoever, I suggest that such deriviations are rather more objective than an ethical system derived from an arbitrary choice of sacred text, itself subjected to subjective cherry-picking.Elizabeth Liddle_{January 12, 2012
January
01
Jan
12
12
2012
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT}

Look I'm not going to trade genocides with anyone. Suffice it to say that religious belief is not only no guarantee against atrocities, it has frequently been the justification for atrocities. Atheism has, AFAIK never been the justification for any atrocity (communism =/=atheism), and to attribute the crimes of people who simply don't care one way or the other to atheism is like attributing the crimes of all religious people to religion. Arguing over which form of fanaticism has clocked up the largest atrocity toll is stupid. The fact is that fanaticism leads directly to atrocities, whether that fanaticism is political or religious. The nearest thing I can think of to an atheist fanatic is Richard Dawkins, and as far as I know, he's never committed a crime in his life.Elizabeth Liddle_{January 12, 2012
January
01
Jan
12
12
2012
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT}

Ditto on the atonement. Abelard's was the only one that ever made sense to me. Have you read Helen Waddell's wonderful novel, Peter Abelard? That was what got me on to it (age 15!) There's an absolutely beautiful passage near the end when Abelard and his friend Thibault hear a rabbit screaming, and find it caught in a trap:
The rabbit stopped shrieking when they stooped over it, either from exhaustion, or in some last extremity of fear. Thibault held teeth of the trap apart, and Abelard gathered up the little creature in his hands. It lay for a moment breathing quickly, then in some blind recognition of the kindness that had met it at the last, the small head thrust and nestled against his arm, and it died. It was that last confiding thrust that broke Abelard's heart. He looked down at the little draggled body, his mouth shaking. "Thibault," he said, "do you think there is a God at all? Whatever has come to me, I earned it. But what did this one do?" Thibault nodded. "I know," he said. "Only - I think God is in it too." Abelard looked up sharply. "In it? Do you mean that it makes Him suffer, the way it does us?" Again, Thibault nodded. "Then why doesn't he stop it?" "I don't know," said Thibault. "Unless - unless it's like the Prodigal Son. I suppose the father could have kept him at home against his will. But what would have been the use? All this," he stroked the limp body, "is because of us. But all the time God suffers. More than we do." Abelard looked at him, perplexed. .... "Thibault, do you mean Calvary?" Thibault shook his head. "That was only a piece of it - the piece that we saw - in time. Like that." He pointed to a fallen tree beside them, sawn through the middle. "That dark ring there, it goes up and down the whole length of the tree. But you only see it where it is cut across. That is what Christs' life was; the bit of God that we saw. And we think God is like that, because Christ was like that, kind, and forgiving sins and healing people. We think God is like that for ever, because it happened once, with Christ. But not the pain. Not the agony at the last. We think that stopped." Abelard looked at thim, the blunt nose and the wide mouth, the honest troubled eyes. He could have knelt before him. "Then Thibault," he said slowly, "you think that all this," he looked down at the little quiet body in his arms, "all the pain of the world was Christ's cross?" "God's cross," said Thibault. "And it goes on."
Elizabeth Liddle_{January 12, 2012
January
01
Jan
12
12
2012
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT}

It's not my reading, vjtorley. My reading is that it's a myth. I think it's rather powerful, as long as we don't read it as history. As a metaphor for the fact that our freedom of action (freedom from immediacy) grants us not only the capacity to do good, but to do evil, it's rather good. My big beef with literalists is that a literal reading not only makes for bad history, but worse theology.Elizabeth Liddle_{January 12, 2012
January
01
Jan
12
12
2012
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

ES: the trick is that religious affiliation is very different from serious religious involvement, and we are looking at a situation where for decades, there has been an intense secularisation and undermining of Christian morality on all fronts. The undermining is working, and that is now being used to imply there is no difference. Sorry, a few generations back, before the impacts and erosions had taken so much effect, it was a quite different story. KFkairosfocus_{January 12, 2012
January
01
Jan
12
12
2012
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth: I must say I'm surprised at your bizarre reading of Genesis 2 and 3. You write:
I wouldn’t worship a deity who forbade his creatures to acquire knowledge of the difference between right from wrong and then cursed them when they tried to find out.
Regarding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, I suggest you have a look at this article. You will find a diversity of views as to what the tree represented, and what eating of it meant. Your own theory, that it meant knowing the difference between right and wrong, makes no sense: commanding someone not to do X itself presupposes that the person to whom the command is given knows that it is wrong to break a command. As to the notion that Adam and Eve's descendants were punished by the Fall: Jews certainly don't hold that, and many Christians don't either. Suffering the consequences of your forefather's crime is not the same as being punished for that crime. Your remarks on the Incarnation and Atonement presuppose either a Satisfaction or a Penal theory of the Atonement. I think you should be aware that there are other theories, as Robin Collins explains on his Website here: http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/Philosophical%20Theology/Atonement/Atone.htm Collins develops and defends his "Incarnational theory of Atonement" which fits in well with Eastern Orthodox theology, as well as the writings of Peter Abelard. As for Hell: surely you're familiar with C. S. Lewis' dictum that the gates of Hell are locked on the inside? For an interesting reflection, see here: http://www.discovery.org/a/507vjtorley_{January 12, 2012
January
01
Jan
12
12
2012
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT}

Dr Liddle, Pardon. Across the past 100 years, the actual number of atheistical terrorists -- and the number of their victims -- vastly exceeded the number of IslamIST ones we face today (apart from some odd cults like the LRA etc,there are no other major groups of "religious terrorists" today; and yes, religions, individuals and groups can go bad, we are dealing with specific cases). And, the nihilist amorality and radical relativism involved were a major aspect of the problem. ES, who is from Russia, knows of just what he speaks, but is being very gentle and polite. Please, let us not play at word games when we all know what has been going on and what is on the table. That is what over 100 million victims of said terrors would tell us if they were able to speak. KFkairosfocus_{January 12, 2012
January
01
Jan
12
12
2012
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply