Why is Seeing the Glaringly Obvious So Hard?

_{Barry Arrington

November 15, 2019

Intelligent Design}

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

Yesterday I had an exchange with Seversky that illustrates something I have observed countless times over the years. Materialists have a blind spot regarding how their own arguments undermine, well, their own arguments. Here is the exchange:

Johnnyb wrote:

The reason for this is the precise theorem that Hoffman states – in evolutionary competition, fitness beats truth.

To which Sev responded:

Unless fitness is truth in which case there is no competition. How does Hoffman – or Plantinga – distinguish between “fitness” and “truth”? Are they comparing like with like?

I wrote:

But Sev, you know for a certain fact that according to your own premises fitness and truth are not the same. For 99% of human existence, 99% of humans have believed in a God or gods. Your premises compel you to say that evolutionary forces caused that state of affairs (for the simple reason that, under your premises, there are no other alternatives). You also say that a belief in a God or gods is a false belief. Therefore, simple logic applied to your own factual premises demands the conclusion that evolutionary forces selected for a false belief.

Sev:

I agree that evolution can select for false beliefs, religion being a possible example, but not that it mostly or always does. Human beings survive better in groups than on their own. Religious belief, even if false, can help to bind such groups together more tightly and make them more resilient in face of challenges. At that level, it is advantageous in terms of survival. On the other hand, believing that tigers are big, cuddly pets who just want to play is probably not going to be so advantageous and, over time, those holding such beliefs are less likely to survive and pass on that belief.

Barry

“I agree that evolution can select for false beliefs . . .” Then you have given away the store. If evolution can select for false beliefs, who is to say when it has selected for a false belief as opposed to a true one. You advance a candidate for what you believe to be a true belief (human beings survive better in groups). Yet, you admit that evolution may have caused you to believe that even though it is false.

It never ceases to astound me that seemingly intelligent people (and I count Sev among such), can’t seem to grasp the glaringly obvious end of the logic. If our beliefs are the product of blind material forces, we can NEVER know whether we believe them because they are actually true or because those blind material forces caused us to believe them even though they are false.

Comments

E.G. Don’t we all in the end have to make certain unprovable assumptions such as the laws of logic? Vividvividbleau_{November 18, 2019
November
11
Nov
18
18
2019
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT}

VB
We have had materialist that actually deny logic as a way of demonstrating things that must be false. They deny the primacy of mind and logic.Logic cannot tell us what is true but in can tell us what must be false.
VB, I agree with the latter, but that only works when the premises of the logical argument are “True”. And that is not always as easy as it seems. For example, many of KF’s arguments assume specific self-evident truths. Self-evident truths that are not demonstrably true.Ed George_{November 18, 2019
November
11
Nov
18
18
2019
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT}

“Naturalists/Materialists/Atheists present an illogical position, if you can get them to disclose what they actually think“ We have had materialist that actually deny logic as a way of demonstrating things that must be false. They deny the primacy of mind and logic.Logic cannot tell us what is true but in can tell us what must be false. Vividvividbleau_{November 18, 2019
November
11
Nov
18
18
2019
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT}

In addition to: Naturalists/Materialists/Atheists present an illogical position, if you can get them to disclose what they actually think. There's: The thing that they allege allows them to come to the illogical position is SCIENCE. But amazingly, they produce a lot of heat and zero light in illuminating any kind of scientific demonstration of their beliefs. Andrewasauber_{November 18, 2019
November
11
Nov
18
18
2019
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT}

In 2013, on another site, I had this brief exchange on-line with someone who identified himself as David P. He asked me if I would consider a world view that actively disagreed with my current theistic Christian world view. Since David had already identified his own world view as naturalism, I told him that if he could prove to me “that naturalism was true, I would.” He replied, “If that is your condition, you are essentially saying “no”, because naturalism cannot be proven.” I responded by asking him, “So, on what basis are you warranted in believing in it?” That question prompted the following dialogue: David wrote: “Believing that naturalism cannot be proven? Because we can only perceive a tiny part of the entire system. We may one day be able to formulate naturalistic theories that explain beautifully all that we perceive, but we cannot prove that that is all there is.” I asked: “So then, you accept naturalism by faith… Correct?” David replied: “I accept naturalism as a working assumption because of the evidence that it helps drive us to understand reality in a way that allows us to make increasingly better predictions. Also, the evidence that so many phenomena attributed to supernatural causes have turned out to have natural causes.” Notice how David, in addition to blurring the distinction between science and philosophy, smuggled faith into his world view without calling it that. What I mean is that he is actually acting on the biblical definition of faith and he doesn’t even realize it. Let me prove it to you… Hebrews 11:3 says: “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.” Someone committed, like David, to naturalism is actually just modifying the verse so that it reads: “By faith we understand that the universe was formed [by some kind of mindless natural process], so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.” Harvard professor of psychology Steven Pinker is someone who takes a scientifically based world view just about to its absolute limit. Pinker writes that,
the findings of science entail that the belief systems of all the world’s traditional religions and cultures—their theories of the origins of life, humans, and societies—are factually mistaken. We know, but our ancestors did not, that humans belong to a single species of African primate that developed agriculture, government, and writing late in its history. We know that our species is a tiny twig of a genealogical tree that embraces all living things and that emerged from prebiotic chemicals almost four billion years ago. We know that we live on a planet that revolves around one of a hundred billion stars in our galaxy, which is one of a hundred billion galaxies in a 13.8-billion-year-old universe, possibly one of a vast number of universes. We know that our intuitions about space, time, matter, and causation are incommensurable with the nature of reality on scales that are very large and very small. We know that the laws governing the physical world (including accidents, disease, and other misfortunes) have no goals that pertain to human well-being. There is no such thing as fate, providence, karma, spells, curses, augury, divine retribution, or answered prayers—though the discrepancy between the laws of probability and the workings of cognition may explain why people believe there are. And we know that we did not always know these things, that the beloved convictions of every time and culture may be decisively falsified, doubtless including some we hold today. In other words, the worldview that guides the moral and spiritual values of an educated person today is the worldview given to us by science.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114127/science-not-enemy-humanities It appears to me that Pinker does not draw and distinction between philosophical naturalism and so-called methodological naturalism. Again notice what he says, the worldview that guides the moral and spiritual values of an educated person today is the worldview given to us by science. The philosophical naturalist has deluded himself into thinking he has a trump card which bolsters his hand… science. The problem is that there are no trump cards in the high stakes world view ontological game. This is because in order to even begin to play the game you must establish the ground of being. You must begin by asking some basic questions. For example, you must ask, why does anything at all exist? Or, what is the nature of existence? How do we know? How can we be sure of what we know? Can we really know the truth about anything? However these are metaphysical questions, not questions that can be answered by science itself. Einstein said that scientists are poor philosophers. That perhaps explains why there are a number of scientists, like Pinker, who believe that science can actually serve as a basis for a world view that can answer some of our biggest questions—at least those that are worthwhile. The late American astronomer Carl Sagan, for example, proclaimed that “the Cosmos is all that there is or ever was or ever will be.” (Again notice that this is an a priori claim that is itself not scientifically provable.) And, Nobel Prize winner Steven Weinberg opines that while “the worldview of science is rather chilling,” nevertheless there is, he goes on to say, “a grim satisfaction, in facing up to our condition without despair and without wishful thinking--with good humor… without God.”john_a_designer_{November 18, 2019
November
11
Nov
18
18
2019
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT}

Ed George, quote-mining fool, strikes again. In comment 63 we read:
(ET)-I hope not as the unborn are the weakest group and we slaughter them.
Ed George: I have not slaughtered a single one. Have you?
No Ed, but the CONTEXT of my quote is:
All I want to know is if you think that the measure of the greatness of a nation is how it treats its weakest groups?
I am NOT the USA, ie NATION, Ed. And YOU are not whatever country/ nation that you come from. How sad are you that you have to constantly quote-mine? Quote-mining is immoral, Ed.ET_{November 18, 2019
November
11
Nov
18
18
2019
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT}

Ed George @37 and DDM @41 I find BA’s comments very convincing. As I am naturally skeptical about everything, it’s good to see that he supports his position with facts and resources, unlike most of your claims and assertions. The reason his word count is so high is that he links the quotes that he is using from the source, so that we don’t have to open 15 different tabs at once to understand his argument. If you have a problem with his word count, then I suggest both of you work on your comprehension skills. Until then, complaining that his “posts are too long” is not a valid response to an argument.massam_{November 18, 2019
November
11
Nov
18
18
2019
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT}

Ironically, the secularism and atheism we presently see infecting the culture of western societies is actually a Christian heresy. I think if we trace the history we see that on the one hand, the roots go back to the Protestant Reformation, on the other, the French revolution. There were no avowed atheists in “Christian” Europe before the Protestant Reformation. If you can think of one, tell me. I’m not saying that the Protestant Reformation was bad in and of itself but that rather as a byproduct it gave rise to some heterodox thinking that led to theological liberalism which in turn has “evolved” or mutated into secular progressivism and militant atheism. As Christian heresies secularism and atheism have held on to and perverted vestiges of Christian ethics and morality. For example, our modern concept of human rights is a distinctly Judeo-Christian. While we see subtle hints of it in ancient Greek and Roman thinking, the substance is unequivocally Judeo-Christian. John Zmirak summarizes this historical trend nicely in an article he has written for The Stream.
The way that leftists unwittingly do this devil’s work is to take some element of Christian ethics and grossly exaggerate it, cut it off from any context, and make of it an idol. Hence “compassion,” “inclusiveness,” “social justice” or “equality” take the place of the person of Jesus and become the object of worship. C.S. Lewis warned against this temptation in Mere Christianity and The Screwtape Letters. In its fullest form, such political idolatry can be seen in Liberation Theology, which perverts the church into a revolutionary Marxist vanguard.
https://stream.org/trump-voting-christians-liberal-pastors-get-crying-wolf/john_a_designer_{November 18, 2019
November
11
Nov
18
18
2019
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT}

Ed George@66: I have not slaughtered a single one. Have you? Said during WWII by 1 German to another about Jews. Must be nothing to worry about then.es58_{November 17, 2019
November
11
Nov
17
17
2019
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT}

ET
I hope not as the unborn are the weakest group and we slaughter them.
I have not slaughtered a single one. Have you?Ed George_{November 17, 2019
November
11
Nov
17
17
2019
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT}

Here is a BBC article (a “secular” source) which discusses the difference between moral subjectivism vs. objectivism. Consider a few of the points the article makes:
"If I approve of something, it must be good" Subjectivism seems to tell us that moral statements give information only about what we feel about moral issues. If the simplest form of subjectivism is true then when a person who genuinely approves of telling lies says "telling lies is good" that moral statement is unarguably true. It would only be untrue if the speaker didn't approve of telling lies. So under this theory it seems that all the speaker has to do to prove that lying is good is to show lots of evidence that they do indeed approve of lying - perhaps that they tell lots of lies and feel good about it, indeed are surprised if anyone criticises them for being a liar, and that they often praise other people for telling lies. Most people would find this way of approaching ethics somewhat unhelpful, and wouldn't think it reflected the way in which most people talk about ethical issues.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/subjectivism.shtml Focusing in on just one of the points above; the objectivist would argue that that there must be a real standard of honesty that applies universally to all members of society. Indeed, society would break down if people weren’t obligated to be honest and tell the truth. Think of government, criminal justice or commerce. When people are dishonest our fundamental and basic institutions begin to break down.john_a_designer_{November 17, 2019
November
11
Nov
17
17
2019
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PDT}

Moreover, the following studies actually show that our moral intuition itself transcends space and time: Specifically, in the following study, They found that subjects responded strongly to emotional images compared to neutral images, and that the emotional response occurred between a fraction of a second to several seconds BEFORE the image appeared
Quantum Consciousness – Time Flies Backwards? – Stuart Hameroff MD Excerpt: Dean Radin and Dick Bierman have performed a number of experiments of emotional response in human subjects. The subjects view a computer screen on which appear (at randomly varying intervals) a series of images, some of which are emotionally neutral, and some of which are highly emotional (violent, sexual….). In Radin and Bierman’s early studies, skin conductance of a finger was used to measure physiological response They found that subjects responded strongly to emotional images compared to neutral images, and that the emotional response occurred between a fraction of a second to several seconds BEFORE the image appeared! Recently Professor Bierman (University of Amsterdam) repeated these experiments with subjects in an fMRI brain imager and found emotional responses in brain activity up to 4 seconds before the stimuli. Moreover he looked at raw data from other laboratories and found similar emotional responses before stimuli appeared. http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/views/TimeFlies.html
And in the following meta-analysis of 26 reports published between 1978 and 2010, the researchers found that your body can anticipate morally troubling situations between two and 10 seconds before it happens
Can Your Body Sense Future Events Without Any External Clue? (meta-analysis of 26 reports published between 1978 and 2010) - (Oct. 22, 2012) Excerpt: "A person playing a video game at work while wearing headphones, for example, can't hear when his or her boss is coming around the corner. But our analysis suggests that if you were tuned into your body, you might be able to detect these anticipatory changes between two and 10 seconds beforehand,,, This phenomenon is sometimes called "presentiment," as in "sensing the future," but Mossbridge said she and other researchers are not sure whether people are really sensing the future. "I like to call the phenomenon 'anomalous anticipatory activity,'" she said. "The phenomenon is anomalous, some scientists argue, because we can't explain it using present-day understanding about how biology works; though explanations related to recent quantum biological findings could potentially make sense. It's anticipatory because it seems to predict future physiological changes in response to an important event without any known clues, and it's an activity because it consists of changes in the cardiopulmonary, skin and nervous systems." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121022145342.htm
Moreover, in the preceding paper one of the researchers remarked that 'we can't explain (the anticipatory activity of the body) using present-day understanding about how biology works; though explanations related to recent quantum biological findings could potentially make sense.'… And, exactly as she thought, quantum biological findings do indeed shed light how it might be possible for the body to anticipate morally troubling situations before they happen. In fact, as this following video shows,,
Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSig2CsjKbg
, findings in quantum biology go much further and gives us strong physical evidence that humans possess a transcendent component to their being on the molecular level that is not reducible to the materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution.
Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012 Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” http://www.quantumlah.org/highlight/121029_hidden_influences.php
That is to say, findings from quantum biology now give us experimental evidence strongly suggesting we do indeed have a transcendent 'soul' that is capable of living beyond the death of our material bodies just as Christians have held all along. As Stuart Hameroff states in the following article, the quantum information,,, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed.,,, it's possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”
Leading Scientists Say Consciousness Cannot Die It Goes Back To The Universe - Oct. 19, 2017 - Spiritual Excerpt: “Let’s say the heart stops beating. The blood stops flowing. The microtubules lose their quantum state. But the quantum information, which is in the microtubules, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed. It just distributes and dissipates to the universe at large. If a patient is resuscitated, revived, this quantum information can go back into the microtubules and the patient says, “I had a near death experience. I saw a white light. I saw a tunnel. I saw my dead relatives.,,” Now if they’re not revived and the patient dies, then it's possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.” - Stuart Hameroff - Quantum Entangled Consciousness - Life After Death - video (5:00 minute mark) https://www.disclose.tv/leading-scientists-say-consciousness-cannot-die-it-goes-back-to-the-universe-315604
Verse:
Mark 8:37 Is anything worth more than your soul?
Thus besides the fact that atheists themselves cannot live their lives as if objective morality does not really exist, the Christian can also appeal to empirical evidence itself that indicates that morality is indeed objectively real. Verse:
Romans 2:14-15 Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the Law, do by nature what the Law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the Law, since they show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts either accusing or defending them.…
bornagain77_{November 17, 2019
November
11
Nov
17
17
2019
06:26 PM
6
06
26
PM
PDT}

Besides the fact that atheists themselves are unable to live their lives as if morality were REALLY illusory and subjective, I can also appeal to empirical evidence to support the Christian's claim that morality is objective and real. Since unguided Darwinian processes have never shown the origination of even a single gene and/or protein,
Stephen Meyer (and Doug Axe) Critique Richard Dawkins's "Mount Improbable" - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rgainpMXa8
, then it is very interesting to note that the expression of gene networks in humans are designed in a very sophisticated way so as to differentiate between hedonic moral happiness and ‘noble’ moral happiness: The following paper states that there are hidden costs of purely hedonic well-being.,, “At the cellular level, our bodies appear to respond better to a different kind of well-being, one based on a sense of connectedness and purpose.”
Human Cells Respond in Healthy, Unhealthy Ways to Different Kinds of Happiness - July 29, 2013 Excerpt: Human bodies recognize at the molecular level that not all happiness is created equal, responding in ways that can help or hinder physical health,,, The sense of well-being derived from “a noble purpose” may provide cellular health benefits, whereas “simple self-gratification” may have negative effects, despite an overall perceived sense of happiness, researchers found.,,, But if all happiness is created equal, and equally opposite to ill-being, then patterns of gene expression should be the same regardless of hedonic or eudaimonic well-being. Not so, found the researchers. Eudaimonic well-being was, indeed, associated with a significant decrease in the stress-related CTRA gene expression profile. In contrast, hedonic well-being was associated with a significant increase in the CTRA profile. Their genomics-based analyses, the authors reported, reveal the hidden costs of purely hedonic well-being.,, “We can make ourselves happy through simple pleasures, but those ‘empty calories’ don’t help us broaden our awareness or build our capacity in ways that benefit us physically,” she said. “At the cellular level, our bodies appear to respond better to a different kind of well-being, one based on a sense of connectedness and purpose.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130729161952.htm
Moreover, and as would be expected if morality were objectively real as Christians hold, it is now found that atheists suffer physically and mentally as a result of forsaking the objective reality of morality in general and from forsaking God in particular. Professor Andrew Sims former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists states that '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.',,, 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…
“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 https://books.google.com/books?id=PREdCgAAQBAJ&pg=PR11#v=onepage&q&f=false “In the majority of studies, religious involvement is correlated with well-being, happiness and life satisfaction; hope and optimism; purpose and meaning in life; higher self-esteem; better adaptation to bereavement; greater social support and less loneliness; lower rates of depression and faster recovery from depression; lower rates of suicide and fewer positive attitudes towards suicide; less anxiety; less psychosis and fewer psychotic tendencies; lower rates of alcohol and drug use and abuse; less delinquency and criminal activity; greater marital stability and satisfaction… We concluded that for the vast majority of people the apparent benefits of devout belief and practice probably outweigh the risks.” - Professor Andrew Sims former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists - Is Faith Delusion?: Why religion is good for your health – page 100 https://books.google.com/books?id=PREdCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA100#v=onepage&q&f=false
And the following meta-analysis of studies found that Active religious involvement increased the chance of living longer by some 29%, and participation in public religious practices, such as church attendance, increased the chance of living longer by 43%.
Atheism and health A meta-analysis of all studies, both published and unpublished, relating to religious involvement and longevity was carried out in 2000. Forty-two studies were included, involving some 126,000 subjects. Active religious involvement increased the chance of living longer by some 29%, and participation in public religious practices, such as church attendance, increased the chance of living longer by 43%.[4][5] http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_health Can attending church really help you live longer? This study says yes - June 1, 2017 Excerpt: Specifically, the study says those middle-aged adults who go to church, synagogues, mosques or other houses of worship reduce their mortality risk by 55%. The Plos One journal published the "Church Attendance, Allostatic Load and Mortality in Middle Aged Adults" study May 16. "For those who did not attend church at all, they were twice as likely to die prematurely than those who did who attended church at some point over the last year," Bruce said. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/06/02/can-attending-church-really-help-you-live-longer-study-says-yes/364375001/
bornagain77_{November 17, 2019
November
11
Nov
17
17
2019
06:26 PM
6
06
26
PM
PDT}

Ed George:
All I want to know is if you think that the measure of the greatness of a nation is how it treats its weakest groups?
I hope not as the unborn are the weakest group and we slaughter them.ET_{November 17, 2019
November
11
Nov
17
17
2019
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PDT}

BA77
The fact that Ed George himself cannot live his life as if morality were REALLY illusory and subjective, as he believes, is proof that his belief is delusional.
I have no idea what you are saying. And I’m sure that your following 1000+ words don’t clarify the issue. All I want to know is if you think that the measure of the greatness of a nation is how it treats its weakest groups? A simple yes or no will do.Ed George_{November 17, 2019
November
11
Nov
17
17
2019
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT}

The fact that Ed George himself cannot live his life as if morality were REALLY illusory and subjective, as he believes, is proof that his belief is delusional. As the following article stated, "Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath."
The Heretic – Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? – March 25, 2013 Excerpt: ,,,Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/heretic_707692.html?page=3
The following article by Nancy Pearcey lists several examples of leading atheists admitting that it is impossible for them to live their life as if their atheism were actually true:
Darwin's Robots: When Evolutionary Materialists Admit that Their Own Worldview Fails - Nancy Pearcey - April 23, 2015 Excerpt: This is an amazing case of Orwellian doublethink. Minsky says people are "forced to maintain" the conviction of free will, even when their own worldview tells them that "it's false." When I teach these concepts in the classroom, an example my students find especially poignant is Flesh and Machines by Rodney Brooks, professor emeritus at MIT. Brooks writes that a human being is nothing but a machine -- a "big bag of skin full of biomolecules" interacting by the laws of physics and chemistry. In ordinary life, of course, it is difficult to actually see people that way. But, he says, "When I look at my children, I can, when I force myself, ... see that they are machines." Is that how he treats them, though? Of course not: "That is not how I treat them.... I interact with them on an entirely different level. They have my unconditional love, the furthest one might be able to get from rational analysis." Certainly if what counts as "rational" is a materialist worldview in which humans are machines, then loving your children is irrational. It has no basis within Brooks's worldview. It sticks out of his box. How does he reconcile such a heart-wrenching cognitive dissonance? He doesn't. Brooks ends by saying, "I maintain two sets of inconsistent beliefs." He has given up on any attempt to reconcile his theory with his experience. He has abandoned all hope for a unified, logically consistent worldview. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/04/when_evolutiona095451.html
Richard Dawkins himself admitted that it would be ‘intolerable’ for him to live his life as if his atheistic materialism were actually true
Who wrote Richard Dawkins’s new book? – October 28, 2006 Excerpt: Dawkins: What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don’t feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do.,,, Manzari: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views? Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/10/who_wrote_richard_dawkinss_new002783.html
In what should be needless to say, if it is impossible for you to live as if your worldview were actually true then your worldview cannot possibly reflect reality as it really is but your worldview must instead be based on a delusion.
Existential Argument against Atheism – November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen 1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview. 2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview. 3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality. 4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion. 5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true. Conclusion: Atheism is false. http://answersforhope.com/existential-argument-atheism/
Moreover, in order to reject God, E.G. had to steal objective morality from God,,, he stated,,
Is this the same god that instructs you to kill homosexuals, and non virgins? The same god that tells you just how much you can beat your slave? The same god (Jesus) who says that the original laws (killing homosexuals) still stand? Sorry, but I refuse to follow such an intolerant, hateful god.
Although E.G.'s interpretation of scripture is juvenile at best, just where does E.G. get his objective moral standard that it is wrong to harm and kill other people? On the one hand he wants to condemn God for his falsely supposed moral transgressions, yet on the other hand he denies the existence of objective morality. Simply put, Atheists have to steal objective morality from Theism in order to attack God in the first place. Atheism simply cannot ground morality of any reasonable sort:
The Universe Reflects a Mind – Michael Egnor – February 28, 2018 Excerpt: Goff argues that a Mind is manifest in the natural world, but he discounts the existence of God because of the problem of evil. Goff seriously misunderstands the problem of evil. Evil is an insoluble problem for atheists, because if there is no God, there is no objective standard by which evil and good can exist or can even be defined. If God does not exist, “good” and “evil” are merely human opinions. Yet we all know, as Kant observed, that some things are evil in themselves, and not merely as a matter of opinion. Even to raise the problem of evil is to tacitly acknowledge transcendent standards, and thus to acknowledge God’s existence. From that starting point, theodicy begins. Theists have explored it profoundly. Atheists lack the standing even to ask the question.,,, https://evolutionnews.org/2018/02/the-universe-reflects-a-mind/
For atheists to have to ‘borrow’ objective morality from Theists in order to attack God (and Christians) as somehow being morally deficient is again, as Cornelius Van Til put it, “like the child who must climb up onto his father’s lap into order to slap his face.”
“Hawking’s entire argument is built upon theism. He is, as Cornelius Van Til put it, like the child who must climb up onto his father’s lap into order to slap his face. Take that part about the “human mind” for example. Under atheism there is no such thing as a mind. There is no such thing as understanding and no such thing as truth. All Hawking is left with is a box, called a skull, which contains a bunch of molecules. Hawking needs God In order to deny Him.” – Cornelius Hunter
Of supplemental note: Out of all the mono-Theistic religions, only the grace inherent within Christianity realistically and sufficiently bridges the infinite moral gap between God’s moral perfection and humanity’s moral imperfection. The unmerited grace of Christ bridging that infinite moral gap on the behalf of humans is called “propitiation”:
Top Ten Reasons We Know the New Testament is True – Frank Turek – video – November 2011 (41:00 minute mark – Despite what is commonly believed, of someone being ‘good enough’ to go to heaven, in reality both Mother Teresa and Hitler fall short of the moral perfection required to meet the perfection of God’s objective moral code) http://saddleback.com/mc/m/5e22f/ Tim Keller – The Mountain – The Terrifying and Beckoning God – (the unapproachable God of the old testament vs. the approachable God of the new testament) – sermon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6tnnU_wUi8 G.O.S.P.E.L. – (the grace of propitiation) poetry slam – video https://vimeo.com/20960385
Verse and video:
1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words “The Lamb” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tmka1l8GAQ
bornagain77_{November 17, 2019
November
11
Nov
17
17
2019
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT}

BA77
E.G. appeals to the objective moral of “A nation’s greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members”, and yet then turns right around and claims that “I don’t believe that there are objective moral standards”.
Nobody said that this was an objective moral. It is obviously a subjective one. And an opinion I support. Don’t you?Ed George_{November 17, 2019
November
11
Nov
17
17
2019
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT}

E.G. appeals to the objective moral of “A nation’s greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members”, and yet then turns right around and claims that "I don’t believe that there are objective moral standards". I wonder if E.G. would be willing to debate his non-belief in objective morality a little more personally? i.e. I wonder if E.G. would actually be willing to personally face the realistic consequences of his stated belief in the non-existence of objective morality?
Cruel Logic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x__pGaIXKic
bornagain77_{November 17, 2019
November
11
Nov
17
17
2019
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

.
Sorry, but I refuse to follow such an intolerant, hateful god.
Yawn. Is it also why you refuse to acknowledge that (under your enlightened worldview) a woman being raped and murdered would need the consensus of others to know for absolute certain, before her impending death, that her feelings of brutalization were valid? Is it also why (as you preen and posture for science and reason) that you refuse to acknowledge that a symbol system and language structure were not only predicted to be at the heart of the living cell, but also very famously discovered there, and carefully recorded (as such) in the scientific literature?Upright BiPed_{November 17, 2019
November
11
Nov
17
17
2019
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

Earth to Ed- Supporting a woman's right to choose is the same as supporting abortion.
Is this the same god that instructs you to kill homosexuals, and non virgins?
That was for a specific time and place, Ed.ET_{November 17, 2019
November
11
Nov
17
17
2019
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT}

BA77
Besides the fact that you support abortion,..
Beside the fact that you are putting words in my mouth that I never said..,
exactly where do you think that objective moral standard comes from?
Since I don’t believe that there are objective moral standards, your question is irrelevant.
The objective morality of God is not just a smorgasbord wherein you can just pick and choose whatever objective moral you want in order to try to justify the immoral behavior of homosexuality.
Is this the same god that instructs you to kill homosexuals, and non virgins? The same god that tells you just how much you can beat your slave? The same god (Jesus) who says that the original laws (killing homosexuals) still stand? Sorry, but I refuse to follow such an intolerant, hateful god.Ed George_{November 17, 2019
November
11
Nov
17
17
2019
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT}

Ed George:
It has been said that “A nation’s greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members.”
So now same-sex people are our weakest members? Ed proves that he is a bigot
Allowing same sex couples to marry is one of these measures that makes our nation greater.
Quite the opposite. It shows how weak we really are.ET_{November 17, 2019
November
11
Nov
17
17
2019
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT}

as to:
“A nation’s greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members.”
Besides the fact that you support abortion, and thus, in reality, could care less about our nation's weakest members, exactly where do you think that objective moral standard comes from?
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Thomas Jefferson The Declaration of Independence Second Continental Congress Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
The objective morality of God is not just a smorgasbord wherein you can just pick and choose whatever objective moral you want in order to try to justify the immoral behavior of homosexuality. Just as God is clear in regards to protecting the weak and defenselessness, like say unborn babies, God is also clear on his view of homosexuality.
What God Says About Homosexuality November 1, 2017 by Dr. Robert Jeffress https://www.firstdallas.org/icampus/blog/what-god-says-about-homosexuality/
bornagain77_{November 17, 2019
November
11
Nov
17
17
2019
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

ET
So what does Ed do? Pick on that small %.
It has been said that “A nation’s greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members.” Allowing same sex couples to marry is one of these measures that makes our nation greater.Ed George_{November 17, 2019
November
11
Nov
17
17
2019
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT}

What is the point of moral subjectivists like E.G., Hazel or Serversky etc. in even being here? If nobody is right about morality then moral subjectivists like them certainly cannot be right. So why do they persist? What are they trying to prove since even if they irrationally believe they are right they cannot logically prove they are right? The only reason that I can think of is that they are self-centered and intolerant. Of course, what else would you expect from a moral subjectivist? Obviously moral objectivists do not believe that everybody is right about morality (that’s the point of an objective transcendent standard) but it does not follow from that that nobody is right about morality. The latter is self-refuting because it’s making a universal truth claim about moral truth which is doing exactly what they as subjectivists are claiming cannot be done. If they were really intellectually honest about their so-called beliefs E.G. et al would move along because they have nothing to say here. So called moral subjectivism is basically moral nihilism, which is about nothing. Therefore, they have nothing to say.john_a_designer_{November 17, 2019
November
11
Nov
17
17
2019
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT}

LoL! @ Ed the quote-mining fool. Only males mating with females can procreate. Sure there are a SMALL % of exceptions but not enough to deny the biological facts. So what does Ed do? Pick on that small %. Elderly couples most likely already had kids- so they're already in the club. And some can still procreate. The others would all depend on the specific CONTEXT. And it is so small of a % that only a desperate fool would think it matters to the overall argument. Same-sex couples can NEVER procreate within that relationship. It isn't as if it happened once and we are certain it will happen again if they keep trying. AND it is unnatural- it also goes against the coveted natural selection.ET_{November 17, 2019
November
11
Nov
17
17
2019
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

ET
November 17, 2019 at 10:12 am Oh my- Ed must be in desperation mode. People of the same sex cannot procreate. That is the OBJECTIVE reason to disallow same-sex marriages. That is a biological fact that Ed ignores as if his willful ignorance is an argument.
Elderly couples can’t procreate. That is the OBJECTIVE fact. Women with hysterectomies can’t procreate. That is an OBJECTIVE fact. Men who have had vasectomies can’t procreate. That is an OBJECTIVE fact. If you are going to use the inability to procreate as rationale to prevent SSM then you have to apply it to all couples who can’t procreate.Ed George_{November 17, 2019
November
11
Nov
17
17
2019
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

Oh my- Ed must be in desperation mode. People of the same sex cannot procreate. That is the OBJECTIVE reason to disallow same-sex marriages. That is a biological fact that Ed ignores as if his willful ignorance is an argument. Only males mating with females can procreate. Sure there are a SMALL % of exceptions but not enough to deny the biological facts. Yes, I have used the argument before and will continue to do so because it works. Ed's desperation and willful ignorance just expose Ed for what he is- a loser without a clueET_{November 17, 2019
November
11
Nov
17
17
2019
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT}

ET
No, it isn’t. It is based on the biological fact that two people of the same sex cannot procreate.
Then why don’t we prevent elderly couples to marry? Or men with low sperm counts? Or women who have had a hysterectomy for medical reasons? You have used this argument before and it carries as much weight as it did before. Nada.Ed George_{November 17, 2019
November
11
Nov
17
17
2019
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

Ed George:
Not preventing same sex marriage is a subjective moral value.
No, it isn't. It is based on the biological fact that two people of the same sex cannot procreate. Ed George loves to make stuff up and then think it is supported by his diatribe.ET_{November 17, 2019
November
11
Nov
17
17
2019
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply