Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Thinking More Deeply About Causation

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I put up a post on MindMatters today about the stock market with a provocative title – “Everyone Can Beat the Market”. It’s not actually about the stock market, but that was the area I was thinking about at the time. It was, in fact, a piece on thinking about causation.

Most people (including experts) tend to have a one-level view of causation. That is, they have a static idea of what the subject matter is, and then they look to see how the pieces bounce around within that static structure. That more or less works for physics. It totally fails everywhere else.

The fact is, in every social interaction, effects become causes of future happenings. Not only that, the effects modify not only the things modeled, but also the static structure that the model assumes. Imagine, for instance, if a gravity experiment actually changed gravity permanently.

A great illustration of this is a cartoon from XKCD.

Romance Drama Cartoon

The problem being described here isn’t just that people are complicated, it’s that the effects change the structure of the game itself. That’s why modeling it is so hard.

This has dramatic effects in everyday life that we don’t even recognize, because our faulty analogy of human causation with physical causation has programmed us not to recognize them.

In the article, I point out that the effects of investing decisions actually effect the market itself. We tend to think of the market as a static structure, but it’s not. The members of the market, the legal rules they utilize, the social rules they utilize, the relationships between the players – all of these things are subject to change.

Take WeWork for instance. It never actually made it to be a part of the market, but it’s failure to materialize will change the decision-making of the market and the precursors to the market for a long time. This means that it will be a *different* market than before. The typical decision-making will be different than before. The risk/reward analysis will be different than before, etc.

While this isn’t meant to focus on politics, I wanted to point out another way that this manifests. In the 2016 election, everybody said, “you have to choose one, so choose the lesser of two evils” (or at least that’s what my friends said). I decided to vote for no one, because no one met my minimum standard. Now, by myself, that does nothing. However, imagine that a large group of people had voted for no one. Do you think that this would be a phenomena that the pollsters would miss? While it is true that I would have failed to effect change of the outcome of 2016, if a large group did it, it could mean the change of the outcome of every election afterwards, as the powers-that-be who run candidates realize that they actually have to appeal to us, and not just run a “not-as-bad-as-that-guy” campaign. The popular mindset says that *this* present outcome is the only thing that matters. But that’s because they all view the game as static.

When you realize that the game itself changes based on your participation, you look at every decision you make differently.

This is why I don’t care about 99% of what psychology or sociology says. Nearly the whole field is chasing mathematical models, not recognizing that the choices you make changes the model itself.

Comments
Sniping at the sidelines means that you've been taken out of the game. Now, some will say that "all ID does is snipe at the sidelines", but we disagree. We are where the real game of life is being played out. Without ID, there are just the lies of evolutionists, unchallenged. It's some strong percentage of biologists who question Darwinists, if not a third precisely. Behe was reflecting on his professional experience. Every biologist should question Darwinism. As a concept, it simply doesn't work and anyone who cannot see that has been brainwashed by popular opinion or peer-pressure.Silver Asiatic
January 18, 2020
January
01
Jan
18
18
2020
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT
Folks, As I think about cause, I am led to ponder a current discussion that echoes Plato on the self-moved, ensouled agent with genuine freedom. Without endorsing wider context, John C Wright draws out a key point that we may ponder as a nugget drawn from a stream-bed:
Men have souls [--> that which gives us self-moved, responsible, rational freedom]. Once one accepts that premise, one must accept the conclusions that follow from it: creatures with souls are not evolved from slime, since spirit, being simple and eternal, cannot be brought into being by matter, which is compound, subject to change and decay, nor brought into being by any blind natural process; therefore, instead, spirit must be created in a divine image, with the faculties of reason and conscience and creativity. Living spirits like man hence are responsible each man for his own action, hence by right are worthy of the fruits each man of his own labor. Since this right comes not from the state, it should not in justice be abrogated by the state, for the right to property is sacrosanct, and, by the same logic, so too are all rights to life and liberty and to the freedom of the conscience. [--> I add, echoing the US DoI of 1776: the state enters, with the consent of the governed, as a common means to safeguard the civil peace of justice; that due balance of rights, freedoms and duties in community which cannot be reliably pursued otherwise -- in which context, it has a legitimate power of moderate, prudent taxation as a cost-effective means to fund the defence and reasonable enhancement of the common good.] Nor can a created being overstep the authority created into him by his creator, that is, Man cannot play God; which means he cannot slay innocent children in the womb nor murder the sick and elderly and useless gobblers of bread, nor breed men like dogsbreeders breeding dogs, nor commit suicide oneself, not even the slow suicide of addiction to self-destructive substances and ideas. If man is created by divinity, it is not in his choice to demean and trample the image of God in himself nor his neighbor: modesty, honesty, humility, patience, prudence and temperance become sacrosanct. Even such seemingly unrelated matters, such as the low dirt of modern speech, the crass ugliness of modern art, the vainglorious ignorance of modern schooling, become offenses against this divine image seen in man . . . . If men have souls, what does skin hue matter?
It is that lost vision that is the context for the present endarkening of our civilisation, in which what we imagine is light is instead such darkness that we often imagine that light is darkness, accusing him who is Reason Himself and Goodness Himself of being an arbitrary would-be cosmological tyrant. That is why something as out of kilter as Euthyphro's dilemma could even seem plausible. That seeming plausibility is a diagnostic sign of our soul-sickness. KFkairosfocus
January 17, 2020
January
01
Jan
17
17
2020
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT
EG, if you were to look at 61 above in context and respond on merits, you might see reasons why a significant minority of bioscience people would have serious doubts about the reigning orthodoxy, ideologically imposed evolutionary materialistic scientism.. Perhaps, you may care to give a response that rises above strawman caricatures. KFkairosfocus
January 17, 2020
January
01
Jan
17
17
2020
07:44 PM
7
07
44
PM
PDT
. Ed at 68, Since your ability to engage in physical evidence withers so thoroughly at examples from biology that exemplify Behe's concept of irreducible complexity, perhaps you show a little more respect. No, of course not -- a silly thought, I understand -- but just imagine how much more compelling you would be if you weren't relegated to merely sniping at intellectual opponents from the sidelines.Upright BiPed
January 17, 2020
January
01
Jan
17
17
2020
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT
The question is what serious biologist doesn't question the untestable claims of Darwinian/ neo-Darwinian/ evolution by means of blind and mindless processes? Or do they all still believe that their wishful thinking and promissory notes is how science is conducted?ET
January 17, 2020
January
01
Jan
17
17
2020
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT
It quotes Behe as the source and he says it’s a guestimate based on his research and/or anecdotal data.
Or wishful thinking.Ed George
January 17, 2020
January
01
Jan
17
17
2020
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT
Axel Evolution depends entirely on "the will to survive" but there's no explanation for where that came from. The first life forms had it. They wanted to live and not merely be chemicals. This is explained as like a snowflake or soap bubble continues to exist in it's form until it melts or breaks. But no, the will to survive fights against decay like that. Supposedly, blind, mindless chemical combinations created a will to survive, even when there is no reason, purpose or benefit to living. Bacteria must have the will to survive, but are they really a lot better of alive than just being inert chemicals? It's just another one of the many illogical proposals of evolutionism.Silver Asiatic
January 17, 2020
January
01
Jan
17
17
2020
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT
Or perhaps one-third of biologists now confess to questioning Darwinism .... ? Having perhaps lost the will, the requisite fitness, to survive ?Axel
January 17, 2020
January
01
Jan
17
17
2020
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
the link doesn’t give the source of the one thirds statistic
It quotes Behe as the source and he says it's a guestimate based on his research and/or anecdotal data.Silver Asiatic
January 17, 2020
January
01
Jan
17
17
2020
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT
KF
BTW, why the Christianity bashing? PLATO was a pagan Greek Scholar c 400 BC, as in 400+ years before Paul spoke before the Areopagus; the concerns I have put on the table clearly stand antecedent to considerations of the Christian faith and the inevitably mixed, feet of clay performance of Christianity influenced cultures.
I introduced Christianity into the topic unnecessarily so he was just responding to that. I should have said that atheism is amoral and if it has any morality it must come from other sources. You mentioned 1789 and 1917 and those moments show what can happen when "bashing" moves beyond calls for the elimination of religion, to actions directed towards that purpose. That's a very big concern.Silver Asiatic
January 17, 2020
January
01
Jan
17
17
2020
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT
Truthfreedom - the link doesn't give the source of the one thirds statistic. I know you didn't write that piece, but do you know the orirgins of that statistic? Depending on the details, that could either be seen as too high, or as way too low.Bob O'H
January 17, 2020
January
01
Jan
17
17
2020
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT
"Why One-Third Of Biologists Now Question Darwinism" Dedicated Neo-Darwinists often say ‘no serious scientists disagree’ with Darwinism, or ‘only creationists have problems.’ These contentions are increasingly disproven. While Christians have long challenged Charles Darwin’s theory of undirected evolution, few appreciate the true extent of the challenge beyond the church. Current estimates are that approximately one-third of professional academic biologists who do not believe in intelligent design find Darwin’s theory is inadequate to describe all of the complexity in biology. https://thefederalist.com/2019/04/16/one-third-biologists-now-question-darwinism/Truthfreedom
January 17, 2020
January
01
Jan
17
17
2020
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT
PPPS, as you have raised evolution as a scientific, thus empirically grounded explanation, I need to point to the heart of the living cell. That has coded digital, algorithmic information strings and associated execution machinery as has been shown since 1953. It is plain that such is a linguistic manifestation, in effect the machine code of the cell. Empirically, language has but one observed source, language using intelligence. This is backed by the complex, functionally specific organisation well beyond 500 - 1,000 bits. It is utterly incredible on the gamut of the observed cosmos that such could arise by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity. Thus, we have a strong sign of design staring at us, driven by research that won multiple Nobel prizes. That so many refuse to face this plain matter of fact, simply shows how deeply embedded the a priori ideology of evolutionary materialistic scientism is in our time. If you deny, kindly show us an actually observed case of such linguistic FSCO/I arising by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity without intelligently directed configuration: ______kairosfocus
January 16, 2020
January
01
Jan
16
16
2020
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT
PPS: You have also been here when we have looked at moral yardstick 1, the kidnapped, sexually defiled, murdered child, which is self-evidently a case of what ought not to be done. Self evident as one can only deny that by immediate reduction to utter absurdity. That's why so many over the years have tried instead to evade or distract. In your latest, you seem to imagine that the Euthyphro dilemma, so called, is not answered by the issue that there is but one serious answer to the fusion of is and ought, the inherently good and utterly wise creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, worthy of our responsible, reasonable service that does the good that accords with our manifest nature. A view that is endorsed by scripture, which nowhere casts sound reason [= wisdom] in opposition to the teachings and principles of the utterly wise and inherently good creator-God. Just the opposite, Solomon -- a man far wiser than you and me put together -- speaks as to how the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, but fools despise wisdom and instruction. James the Just warns against a ruinous worldliness posing as wisdom and Paul does much the same, pausing to point out our moral incoherence where we consistently fail to live up to what we expect others to accord to us. He also points out that core morality is bound up in recognising and respecting neighbour as self, drawing out that he who loves neighbour will do him or her no harm, which actually implies the decalogue. Jesus, of course famously summed up his core moral teaching in the most famous sermon in history by quoting the neighbour-love principle from Moses. So, no, Ethical Theism in the Hebraic-Christian tradition is NOT an expression of blind following of arbitrary decrees. Thou shalt do no harm implies thou shalt not rob thy neighbour of property, innocent reputation, wife or life. And more.kairosfocus
January 16, 2020
January
01
Jan
16
16
2020
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT
PS, that you likewise wish to equate design thought and "Creationists" speaks volumes about the concerns just again summarised. You have been here at UD for many years, so you full well know or should acknowledge the manifest distinction, but clearly seek a rhetorical club by erecting a strawman caricature to bash. That is unfair, unjust, imprudent, improper use of reason and disregarding of duty to truth. I would point a newbie to the UD Weak Argument correctives [under the resources tab at the head of this and every UD page . . . ], but you are anything but a newbie; you must know the well warranted corrections to that invidious conflation but choose to resort to irresponsible rhetoric. That's sad and sadly revealing.kairosfocus
January 16, 2020
January
01
Jan
16
16
2020
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT
Sev, we both know that evolutionary materialistic scientism is an ideology that often dresses up in the lab coat. However, the worldview core of it was old in Plato's day. Where, BTW, why the Christianity bashing? PLATO was a pagan Greek Scholar c 400 BC, as in 400+ years before Paul spoke before the Areopagus; the concerns I have put on the table clearly stand antecedent to considerations of the Christian faith and the inevitably mixed, feet of clay performance of Christianity influenced cultures. Where, the issue here is world-root level start points and the prime challenge of bridging IS and OUGHT. We are all by now familiar with the Lewontin summary and should know the US National Science Teacher's Association attempt to write it into the definition of science and school curricula. Materialism is just what Plato pointed out long since, utterly relativistic, without any world-root level bridge that joins IS and OUGHT, so it invites nihilism and power-driven factions. Which we saw play out again and again since 1789 and especially since 1917. We can add that as reason is inescapably morally governed by duty to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to fairness and justice etc, such an ideology is also corrupting of reason; yet another way it will undermine not only science but our whole civilisation. For that matter, it has no sound basis for a responsible, rational, significantly free mind, thus undermining its own credibility as a claimed rational, responsible view. Then, to top all of this off, the scientism in effect claims a monopoly on credible knowledge for this same ideologically driven "science," which would discredit proper comparative difficulties analysis. We could go on and on but that is more than enough to utterly indict this domineering ideology that haunts our civilisation, to its manifest detriment. KFkairosfocus
January 16, 2020
January
01
Jan
16
16
2020
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT
Seversky
Evolutionary materialism, if by that you mean the scientific theory of evolution in biology which treats the living world as physical phenomena, is neither nihilistic – it does not advocate any particular political ideology – nor is it amoral, except in the sense that it is a theory about what is that does not commit the naturalistic fallacy of trying to derive ought from is.
Nihilism is not a political ideology. By evolutionary materialism I mean a philosophy, worldview or proposal. It's a viewpoint that is proclaimed and defended. It's a version of atheism. It is nihilistic and amoral. It is the world created by the Blind Watchmaker. Purposeless, indifferent, mindless, without goal or direction. Humanity is "just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us". There is no reason or need for human life to exist. There is no true good or evil. Lawrence Krauss says: "We're just a bit of pollution…. If you got rid of us…the universe would be largely the same. We're completely irrelevant." That's nihilism. There is no human nature and no standards of moral behavior. That is what amoral nihilism is. You deny that this worldview is nihilistic and amoral but that's just an assertion.
What surprises me is that ID/Creationists pretend that evolutionists or atheists are unable to form moral judgments.
No, we don't say that. Moral judgements are unnecessary in the evolutionist and atheistic world, but people can form various judgements. A person can establish a personal moral standard that justifies murder or rape. That's unnecessary really, but it's a form of relativism and atheists can do that. A certain action can be declared morally good and another to be evil.
Although, thinking about it, I shouldn’t be. ID/Creationists have such a low opinion of humanity – even though it is supposed to be the pinnacle of God’s creation – that they think we cannot know moral from immoral unless God tells us. They would not know by themselves that it is wrong to kidnap, rape and murder a child unless God told them.
People kidnap, rape and murder children every day. Either they do not know or do not care that these are immoral acts. In either case, atheistic-materialism cannot give a compelling reason why murderers and rapists shouldn't do such things. If, however, God forbids them and there is justice and recompense for evil actions, that is a lot different.
Without that, apparently, if they saw something like that happening right before their eyes, they would just scratch their heads in bemusement and wonder what they should do.
Without a design for life, humanity would not exist. But even in the atheistic model, people today avoid taking responsibility for evil that occurs around them. People avoid risking their life to stop some sorts of evil. In evolutionary-atheistic terms, there is good reason to avoid risking one's life to prevent or stop a murder or rape. Individuals themselves can increase their reproductive success by doing things that are harmful to others.
What is even more alarming is that they hand over all responsibility for morals to their God. Whatever He says goes. Without question. Even though nowhere does He give any kind of detailed rationale for any of His moral edicts.
It's a strange argument, not only for turning the conversation away from nihilistic amorality, but because you're presenting a dilemma that is hard to understand. First, you're talking about human beings who rely on God to teach them the causes and purposes of creation and of their own lives. That same, relatively ignorant and powerless human, stands in judgement of God when He says something. So the human person is going to tell God that He got it wrong? Wouldn't it be better to understand the fulness of the plan first before rendering a judgement on it? I suppose some of this does make sense in a strange way because the same human will insist that his own moral code is "better" than what God designed. He'll follow his own rules faithfully, but will reject God's rules. However, the same human does not know why the world or even himself was created. His own personal morality may have disasterous effects on the whole of creation.
So, if a Christian were convinced that their God had appeared to them and told them to sacrifice their child as a demonstration of their faith, they would do it. Without question. That’s not morality. That’s the Nazi defense of “I was just following orders”.
Adherence to a moral code is what morality is. A person who designs their own morality, obeys their own self. So, the atheist sets himself up as god of his own life - creating moral rules and then following his own commands. So, if the atheist commands himself to rape someone, he will do it. And that's "just following orders". He's telling himself what to do, and justifying it by his own moral rules.
The Golden Rule, for example, or its equivalent can be found in other faiths and cultures, some of which pre-date Christianity.
The point is that nihilism contributes nothing to those moral norms. Any and every kind of moral rule within atheism comes from somewhere else, and can be selected from any number of codes. Any behavior can be justified, including pedophilia, cannibalism, human sacrifice, torture. My point was that often, atheists act as if religious-derived moral norms are so obviously correct that we should be outraged or ashamed that there is a conflict with them. But that is contradictory in an amoral system such as evolutionary-materialist-atheism is. I did not perceive your critique as Christian bashing, so I appreciate that. I did not intend to bash evolutionists, but rather look for some clarity. As I said, some evolutionists admit the amoral nature of their worldview, but only rarely bring that to the forefront. It's a contradiction to express moral outrage from within a system that tolerates any and all behaviors as neither good nor evil.
You are, of course, free to ignore the injunction against throwing stones unless you are without sin and attack evolution or materialism or atheism or agnosticism on moral grounds but, if you do so, expect to be answered in kind.
Jesus was saying we should not throw stones at individuals, since they may actually have less guilt than the stone-throwers have, even though they appear to be in sin. The same does not hold true for "belief systems" themselves, but if you're saying that we should analyze the philosophy for what it really is, and not judge it unfairly -- then yes, agreed. If you're saying that "every philosophy has flaws and weaknesses, and mine has this one we've been discussing" -- that's at least admitting the reality of what we're looking at. But to proclaim that there is no meaning, purpose, direction and that there is no ultimate good and evil, only the survival and extinction of species -- that has a big impact. Plus, to say all of that and then also proclaim that there is an obvious and understandable moral standard in that worldview is to be contradictory. That's the problem I was getting at.Silver Asiatic
January 16, 2020
January
01
Jan
16
16
2020
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT
Sev @ 53, >Even though nowhere does He give any kind of detailed rationale for any of His moral edicts. If God has a rationale (which I assume He does), could finite beings such as ourselves fully comprehend it? There's no reason to think we could. Only grasping what we can, we have to do the best we can. (Being finite sucks.) And no mere human ethicist has much of a foundation for their proposals either. What human ethicist has put forth a system that isn't completely subjective anyway? What ethicist has a system that people are logically and arguably compelled to acknowledge and follow? I haven't encountered one yet. >So, if a Christian were convinced that their God had appeared to them and told >them to sacrifice their child as a demonstration of their faith, they would do it. >That’s not morality. That’s the Nazi defense of “I was just following orders”. Not a great example, because such a command would contradict other more well-established instructions, and I'd reject it myself because of that more solid basis, perhaps questioning my own perceptions first. Hasn't happened to me, so not too worried. >If the theory of evolution is tarnished by its association with the eugenics >movement then how much more is US Christianity tarnished by its toleration of >those who do not deserve it. Yes, both sides get a more-or-less-deserved tarnishing from guilty associations. But evolution/eugenics is a human invention, i.e., its origins are totally mundane. And they to some extent originated with those who hated or at least disbelieved God. They don't have any excuse for their bad outcomes. Because Christianity has a supernatural origin, there are two things to consider: 1) the human implementation of it, and 2) God's ideal of it. For 1), yes, we get all the well-deserved blame. For 2), the ideal also gets an _unfair_ tarnishing (because people don't understand this distinction), but in the ideal, remains untarnished. Our job is to keep struggling towards the ideal.EDTA
January 15, 2020
January
01
Jan
15
15
2020
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT
@54 ET: 'If your position is correct the those would all be perfectly acceptable. But then again, given materialism we wouldn’t exist. And yes, it is ALWAYS nice to know the rules'. Having in 'mind' (pun intended) than according to atheistic materialism 'we' in fact do not exist... It is some very very strange thing what they believe, something like 'there is only particles having the illusion they are "people". Particles have illusions! And they say the Bible is weird!Truthfreedom
January 15, 2020
January
01
Jan
15
15
2020
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT
seversky:
Evolutionary materialism, if by that you mean the scientific theory of evolution in biology...
There isn't any scientific theory of evolution.
ID/Creationists have such a low opinion of humanity – even though it is supposed to be the pinnacle of God’s creation – that they think we cannot know moral from immoral unless God tells us.
That is total loser nonsense. We wouldn't be here without a guiding intelligence.
They would not know by themselves that it is wrong to kidnap, rape and murder a child unless God told them.
If your position is correct the those would all be perfectly acceptable. But then again, given materialism we wouldn't exist. And yes, it is ALWAYS nice to know the rules.
As for this laughable accusation that atheists are somehow “stealing” moral principles from Christians,
Riding the coattails of existing moral peoples.
, it may come as surprise to you to learn that Christianity does not hold any copyright on them and did not originate all of them.
Religious people did. Those who understood there was a higher power to answer to.ET
January 15, 2020
January
01
Jan
15
15
2020
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT
Evolutionary materialism, if by that you mean the scientific theory of evolution in biology which treats the living world as physical phenomena, is neither nihilistic - it does not advocate any particular political ideology - nor is it amoral, except in the sense that it is a theory about what is that does not commit the naturalistic fallacy of trying to derive ought from is. What surprises me is that ID/Creationists pretend that evolutionists or atheists are unable to form moral judgments. Although, thinking about it, I shouldn't be. ID/Creationists have such a low opinion of humanity - even though it is supposed to be the pinnacle of God's creation - that they think we cannot know moral from immoral unless God tells us. They would not know by themselves that it is wrong to kidnap, rape and murder a child unless God told them. Without that, apparently, if they saw something like that happening right before their eyes, they would just scratch their heads in bemusement and wonder what they should do. What is even more alarming is that they hand over all responsibility for morals to their God. Whatever He says goes. Without question. Even though nowhere does He give any kind of detailed rationale for any of His moral edicts. So, if a Christian were convinced that their God had appeared to them and told them to sacrifice their child as a demonstration of their faith, they would do it. Without question. That's not morality. That's the Nazi defense of "I was just following orders". As for this laughable accusation that atheists are somehow "stealing" moral principles from Christians, it may come as surprise to you to learn that Christianity does not hold any copyright on them and did not originate all of them. The Golden Rule, for example, or its equivalent can be found in other faiths and cultures, some of which pre-date Christianity. Should we accuse Christians of appropriating that principle from other cultures and then claiming it as their own? And before the inevitable accusations of Christian-bashing, let me say that I am certain that there are very many fine Christians who live the life exemplified by Jesus in the Bible. They work with the poor, the dispossessed, the homeless, the hopeless, the sick and the dying. They do so without much recognition or recompense and without complaint. It is a tragedy then that some of the most prominent so-called Christian figures here in the US have abandoned the principles of their faith in pursuit of wealth and political power. They excuse the bigotry, hypocrisy and corruption of those in power and utterly fail to hold them to the moral standards they claim to espouse. If the theory of evolution is tarnished by its association with the eugenics movement then how much more is US Christianity tarnished by its toleration of those who do not deserve it. You are, of course, free to ignore the injunction against throwing stones unless you are without sin and attack evolution or materialism or atheism or agnosticism on moral grounds but, if you do so, expect to be answered in kind.Seversky
January 15, 2020
January
01
Jan
15
15
2020
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT
KF - very good points. Evolutionary materialism is nihilistic and amoral. Occasionally, prominent evolutionists will admit this. But, in general, that point is avoided and evolutionists continue to act as if they can claim moral standards or distinctions. They give an expectation that everyone should just agree with certain matters of outrage: "So, you're in favor of slavery?!" But all of that outrage is just stealing values from Christian culture and trying to apply them to a nihilistic, amoral system. It makes no sense.Silver Asiatic
January 15, 2020
January
01
Jan
15
15
2020
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT
KF yes, it's a strange conflict among youthful activists where the anti-fascist groups encounter openly pro-fascist groups, but both use the same techniques and both subscribe to the same underlying materialist philosophy. They only differ in some specifics on governing society but both want to attain control and then maintain power using "whatever works" and sadly that may come to violence in the end. Neither is using a reason-based process, although there is some logic and consistency to it. "If we have enough force, we can crush our enemies and then live the way we want". That's basically what it's all about. That does make sense in an evolutionary context, but it's very destructive of human life. People join extremist movements like that when they feel that nobody is listening to them and that dialogue and calm reasoning is useless. Blame for that goes to society's leaders (especially in academics) where unpopular opinions are shut down and there's not a sincere attempt to understand or give good arguments to the opposition.Silver Asiatic
January 15, 2020
January
01
Jan
15
15
2020
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT
SA, on the breakdown triggered by evolutionary materialism as dominant ideology, we need to start from Plato:
Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,360 ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . . [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-
[ --> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by "winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . " cf a video on Plato's parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]
These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,
[ --> Evolutionary materialism -- having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT -- leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for "OUGHT" is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in "spin") . . . ]
and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ --> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ --> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush -- as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [--> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].
I find it interesting how the usual run of objectors will consistently duck the matter. KFkairosfocus
January 15, 2020
January
01
Jan
15
15
2020
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT
SA, we don't even know what Nazi is an abbreviation for, or where Mussolini came from ideologically. The story of Hugo Junkers should be known by heart by every intelligent 12 year old. We have been systematically dumbed down to the point where imitators of the brown shirts and black shirts imagine they are anti-fascist. Don't get me started on the idolatry of nietzschean superman idolatrous political messianism. KFkairosfocus
January 15, 2020
January
01
Jan
15
15
2020
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT
Sev, been busy. Nope, targetting a General of Terrorism [as opposed to Infantry, Artillery or Panzertruppen] on the battleground only a few miles from his last move (on foreign soil he hoped to turn into a province of the new Persian empire), an attack on an Embassy, as he met with his local proxies did not simply and directly cause the trigger-happy shoot-down of a commercial aircraft as it climbed out of Tehran airport. Where, BTW, there was once a special forces raid by the UK to try to kill General Rommel at his headquarters. There is an obvious chain of poor command and control tied to possession of highly destructive weapons, not only surface to air but surface to surface rockets. An airliner has transponders that inform active radars of just what it is, something went drastically wrong with Iranian command and control. The thought that this same regime has for decades sought long range ballistic missiles and the nukes to put on them, is sobering. But, frankly, adequate rocket science and guidance system design stuff are literally free for a download; Iran has a petroleum industry. One could probably hack a store-bought microwave oven to design a proximity fuse. Besides, you can simply buy a lot, especially with US$ 150 billion of funds paid as though all was well once a terrorist regime signed a peace- in- our- time deal. The real problem is an irresponsible, aggressive regime driven by a global conquest ideology, consult the Black Flag Army Hadith and find out where Khorasan is if you doubt me on this; and, the people of Iran braving militia bullets on the streets are saying just that, that the irresponsible regime's leaders need to step down. KFkairosfocus
January 15, 2020
January
01
Jan
15
15
2020
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT
Every generation of adults think that kids make mistakes and need to learn how to grow up and mature correctly -- yes, wow. Big news there.Silver Asiatic
January 15, 2020
January
01
Jan
15
15
2020
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT
Yes, society is still here. And a lot worse for the wear than it should be. Congratulations...ET
January 15, 2020
January
01
Jan
15
15
2020
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT
From the page of quotes:
“Parents themselves were often the cause of many difficulties. They frequently failed in their obvious duty to teach self-control and discipline to their own children.” Problems of Young People, Leeds Mercury 1938
Adults who teach children that aberrant sexual desires are normal and should be acted upon are the cause of many difficulties. They are failing to teach self-control and discipline to children.Silver Asiatic
January 15, 2020
January
01
Jan
15
15
2020
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT
It is VERY telling that neither Pater nor Acartia Eddie can actually make a case. First quote from Pater's reference:
“[Young people] are high-minded because they have not yet been humbled by life, nor have they experienced the force of circumstances. … They think they know everything, and are always quite sure about it.”
That just says what everyone already knew. That kids think they know better than everyone. But guess what? Those kids grow up and smarten up, or pay the consequences. That doesn't support what Pater claimed:
For thousands of years, every generation has found something about the next generation’s behavior that they find abhorrent, and that they think will “ruin society”.
And it definitely doesn't have anything to do with what I said that prompted Pater's limbic response. By enabling deviant, unnatural and perverse lifestyles, we are ruining society 2nd quote:
“The beardless youth… does not foresee what is useful, squandering his money.”
Also true. Also irrelevant with respect to what I said.
“Our sires’ age was worse than our grandsires’. We, their sons, are more worthless than they; so in our turn we shall give the world a progeny yet more corrupt.”
Seems to be about right. Society has been slowly degrading for quite some time. Science and technology advance regardless. All Pater did was demonstrate that the youth of any given generation have ALWAYs thought more highly of themselves than warranted. And the older generations, having lived through such a period, are all too keen to point out. And none of it has anything to do with By enabling deviant, unnatural and perverse lifestyles, we are ruining society. Neither Pater nor Acartia Eddie will ever demonstrate otherwise.ET
January 15, 2020
January
01
Jan
15
15
2020
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply