Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Francis Schaeffer’s “line of despair” model of our civilisation’s intellectual history:

Categories
Defending our Civilization
Lessons of History
Philosophy
rhetoric
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

We can adapt Francis Schaeffer’s themes, looking back to the Christian Synthesis of the heritage of Jerusalem, Greece and Rome, and the onward flow of ideas and cultural agendas since Paul of Tarsus:

Extending (and correcting) Schaeffer’s vision of the course of western thought, worldviews and culture, C1 – 21

Schaeffer thought that once there was an upper/lower storey approach that in effect gave up on solving the problem of the one and the many, the lower storey would eat up the upper one, unity and coherence would disintegrate:

Dichotomising nature and grace leads to disjointedness in western man’s worldview

Schaeffer and others also thought in terms of the seven mountains picture of the span of culture, how the dominant view sets the agenda and how cultures therefore change. This has been championed by Wallnau and others in recent years. I adapt:

We may carry this onward to the challenge to speak into the culture prophetically, from a gospel based, worldviews informed sound perspective rooted in “The God who is there and who is not silent”:

In our time, all of this is complicated by complex geostrategic issues:

Food for thought. END

F/N: Let me add, a summary from a 2014 conference on military strategy and issues, by Russian General Valery Gerasimov, who in 2014 was Army General, Chief of General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation – First Deputy Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation.

So, this is not some nonentity speculating, this is literally the Russian analysis behind the war in Ukraine, which began in 2014 and has now surged to a much higher kinetic level:

He further amplifies:

U/D April 7: As a “lowest common denominator reference,” we may note that Wikipedia has an article on Colour Revolutions, complete with a list starting with the “yellow” revolution in the Philippines in 1986 (a year which saw also the ouster of “Baby Doc” Duvalier in Haiti). I add, in the same 1986, the student “Cess” strike and protests were observed to be targetted by literal card carrying Communists to become a trigger for a Haiti style overthrow of the Seaga, parliamentary government, it failed but came to the edge of having students shot down by riot police. (I note here as an eyewitness.) We should also note that Jamaica’s low intensity, cold war involved civil war from 1976 to 1980, culminating in the “peanut or lime” [red vs green] violence tainted election in October 1980 also reflects similar characteristics. It is clear that Cuba, the USSR, the USA and UK as well as Israel were involved in Jamaica’s civil conflict, indeed, in late 1990, the USSR sent a delegation to Jamaica to publicly apologise for its part in what happened. Wikipedia’s anonymous drafters and moderators collectively summarise:

Colour revolution (sometimes coloured revolution)[1] is a term used since around 2004 by worldwide media to describe various anti-regime protest movements and accompanying (attempted or successful) changes of government that took place in post-Soviet Eurasia during the early 21st century—namely countries of the former Soviet Union, the former Yugoslavia, and People’s Republic of China.[2] The term has also been more widely applied to several other revolutions elsewhere, including in the Middle East, the Asia-Pacific region, and South America, dating from the late 1980s to the 2020s. Some observers (such as Justin Raimondo and Michael Lind) have called the events a revolutionary wave, the origins of which can be traced back to the 1986 People Power Revolution (also known as the “Yellow Revolution”) in the Philippines.

Some of these movements have had a measure of success; in the early 2000s, for example, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s Bulldozer Revolution (2000), Georgia’s Rose Revolution (2003), Ukraine’s Orange Revolution (2004), and Kyrgyzstan’s Tulip Revolution (2005). In most but not all cases, massive street-protests followed disputed elections or demands for fair elections. They led to the resignation or overthrow of leaders regarded by their opponents as authoritarian.[3] Some events have been called “colour revolutions” but differ from the above cases in certain basic characteristics, including such examples as Lebanon’s Cedar Revolution (2005) and Kuwait’s Blue Revolution (2005).

Russia, China and Vietnam[4] share the view that colour revolutions are the “product of machinations by the United States and other Western powers” and pose a vital threat to their public and national security.[5]

In short, colour revolutions are seen here, as a form of 4th generation war, with emphasis on subversive external intervention, but obviously the pivot is civil conflict, war in the shadows with low kinetic elements leading to or resisting subjugation. Where, as low kinetic implies, the operations of war are no longer primarily military.

Where, too, the baseline summary as to what fourth generation war is and how it emerged in mid C20 [going beyond Blitzkrieg, Deep Battle etc], can be charted:

Characteristics:

Where, the dirty form McFaul Colour revolution model can next be profitably cross connected to the SOCOM insurgency escalator framework and further tied to the 4th generation war model:

If that sounds familiar, it should. Culture War has gone geostrategic.

F/N2: How to destroy liberty.

We can use the Overton window concept to analyse how we can lose constitutional, lawful democracy with freedom and order, through cultural decline driven by ratcheting, slipperly slope lawless agendas, as summarised in the chain of expressions:

WORLDVIEW + POLICY/CULTURAL AGENDA = IDEOLOGY

IDEOLOGY + POWER/STRONG INFLUENCE = REGIME

REGIME (AKA, BALANCE OF POWER-FACTIONS) + DECISION-MAKING INFLUENCES = BUSINESS AS USUAL (BAU)

BAU + INSISTENT VOYAGE OF SINFUL FOLLY = SHIPWRECK

And yes, cultural marxism and broader “critical theory” in the line flowing from the Frankfurt School, I am looking straight at you.

We must recall, lawless oligarchy is — historically — the normal state of government and governance and it can return:

For those who want background, here is more on the Overton Window:

Video:

We must not overlook, the media spin and gaslight game:

More broadly, we can analyse the conventional left-centre-right political spectrum and an alternative more historically anchored political spectrum:

These tie back to Schaeffer’s line of despair model, which is about worldview shifts that open up new cultural, lifestyle and political possibilities as seemingly plausible, opening up the Overton Window. The power brokers and influences manipulate this, and currently the means in play go all the way to colour revolution, 4th generation war operations.

Comments
This cuts against the trend where people think they can conduct an intellectual debate with 280 character tweets. Not every argument can be solved with a bumper-sticker slogan.
I have to disagree. Most arguments can be resolved with very short replies. Often clarification is necessary but short 100-200 word answers will often work. But what we see is endless repeats of the same thing, usually much too long the first time. If people here were limited to 250 words including quotes more would get accomplished. Aside: I’m not against writing something for the record which may be long but not meant to be offered as an argument. If they feel more is needed, links could be used for this.jerry
April 6, 2022
April
04
Apr
6
06
2022
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT
Jerry, there is an openness to a fifth force, of course. KF” So I’m interested in a short answer from KF. Is “God did it” a scientific answer?
This has nothing to do with God or any intelligence. It’s in reference to some other possible force operating blindly in nature such as gravity and the electro magnetic force. It has been referenced before as a possibility but there is no indication that such a force actually exists. But ID would certainly not object to it if one was found.jerry
April 6, 2022
April
04
Apr
6
06
2022
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT
You are avoiding the question, KF. :-) Many religious people, I think, would agree that "God did it" is not a scientific explanation. What do you think?Viola Lee
April 6, 2022
April
04
Apr
6
06
2022
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT
PS: A classic on just why evolutionary materialist scientism is incoherent, a point echoed in Durston's video suggested by Jerry:
"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For
if [p:] my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain [–> taking in DNA, epigenetics and matters of computer organisation, programming and dynamic-stochastic processes; notice, "my brain," i.e. self referential] ______________________________ [ THEN] [q:] I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. [--> indeed, blindly mechanical computation is not in itself a rational process, the only rationality is the canned rationality of the programmer, where survival-filtered lucky noise is not a credible programmer, note the funcionally specific, highly complex organised information rich code and algorithms in D/RNA, i.e. language and goal directed stepwise process . . . an observationally validated adequate source for such is _____ ?] [Corollary 1:] They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence [Corollary 2:] I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. [--> grand, self-referential delusion, utterly absurd self-falsifying incoherence]
In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. Cf. here on (and esp here) on the self-refutation by self-falsifying self referential incoherence and on linked amorality.]
Such a view is necessarily false, it reduces one to self referential grand delusion. It is time to admit it frankly, then start afresh with more promising materials. PPS: SA, thanks.kairosfocus
April 6, 2022
April
04
Apr
6
06
2022
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT
SA, what is your answer to the question: In general, would "God did it" be a scientific explanation?Viola Lee
April 6, 2022
April
04
Apr
6
06
2022
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT
KF, are you saying that the fifth force might be God? I'm asking, in general, is the conclusion that "God did it" a scientific explanation?Viola Lee
April 6, 2022
April
04
Apr
6
06
2022
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT
F/N: We can take it that the substantial questions raised regarding the current worldview state have been settled substantially. Settled, in favour of the points in the OP. For those interested in substance, we can turn to the geostrategic issues in play behind the situation, as the OP points to also. We need to ask, why is it that a fundamentally incoherent ideology and worldview that is also manifestly damaging to civilisation can be so entrenched. The answer, obviously, is that it was not a matter of actual merits but of power games. As Schaeffer highlighted, over generations and even centuries, our intellectual leadership has progressively sought to reconceptualise the world without reference to built in recognised canons of justice that would restrain them. That's the clue, it points to power elites grasping for lawless oligarchy, however disguised. Now, we are seeing the potential death of constitutional democracy pivoting on guarding the civil peace of justice, due balance of rights, freedoms and duties. In that context, the Russian Generals likely have a serious point when they point to a wave of tainted colour revolutions and identify subversion as shadow war. That does not justify what they are doing in the Ukraine, but it is a point to ponder. For, shadow war using agit prop, lawfare, subversion etc is fourth generation warfare which can reduce the conquered under subjugation just as effectively as Hitler's panzers. In which context, I must ask whether the theme colour for the American tainted colour revolution is black. KFkairosfocus
April 6, 2022
April
04
Apr
6
06
2022
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT
I don't think KF needs it, but I'll lend my voice of support to his posts, even the long complex ones, which I find to be excellent. He details his thoughts and provides source material to support the arguments. Very often, he includes commentary within antiquated texts. Yes, these often require careful reading. This cuts against the trend where people think they can conduct an intellectual debate with 280 character tweets. Not every argument can be solved with a bumper-sticker slogan. So, I suggest we just take the time, slow down and read what's there. Absorb the argument and debate or build on it.Silver Asiatic
April 6, 2022
April
04
Apr
6
06
2022
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT
VL, there has long been a discussion in physics as to whether there is a fifth fundamental force, not just gravity, electro-magnetism, weak and strong. So, the door needs to be left open. KFkairosfocus
April 6, 2022
April
04
Apr
6
06
2022
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
Jerry, I agreed a lot with your answer given at 83. However, all 86 said " "VL, attn Jerry, there is an openness to a fifth force, of course. KF" So I'm interested in a short answer from KF. Is "God did it" a scientific answer? Surely KF can tell me what he thinks.Viola Lee
April 6, 2022
April
04
Apr
6
06
2022
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT
and which I can guarantee will not be followed up
This is true about all your comments everywhere on this site. I rarely read them because it is a struggle to do so. So just assume almost nothing of what you write gets read. Which leads to the question, why make comments that don't get read? During a typical week, I read about a hundred articles on various topics so I know what good writing is.jerry
April 6, 2022
April
04
Apr
6
06
2022
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT
Jerry, I spoke to my responses to VL, which is the context of immediate discussion. It will be readily apparent that I mostly cited sources, many of which are not well known and which I can guarantee will not be followed up is simply linked and summarised. For example, we have yet to see VL actually respond to newton's wider remarks in Opticks, Query 31, or for that matter explicitly acknowledge that this is the obvious root for the corrective definition of 2005. KFkairosfocus
April 6, 2022
April
04
Apr
6
06
2022
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT
And no there are not tens of thousands of my words in those comments
So far over 21 thousand words in the comments on this thread. Any guess what percentage is Kf? My reference was to your comments in general.jerry
April 6, 2022
April
04
Apr
6
06
2022
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT
VL, you challenged the summary that the corrective 2005 definition of science for schools was so, and whether theism and especially design thought are science stoppers, familiar language from some pretty tendentious literature, some of it lawfare. My base reply was to cite Newton in Opticks Query 31, and to invite you to read the query. It will suffice to show just where the traditional school level definition of science and its methods comes from, Newton and in this passage though doubtless not usually directly. Newton also refutes by counter example the commonly suggested notion that theistic thought, design thought and even biblical creationism are anti science science stoppers. Newton actually manages to suggest lines of inquiry for the next 200+ years for physics. Peterson outlines the history and current situation. Darwin and Aveling let the cat out of the bag even more than Lewontin. As at now, I think we can conclude the matter is settled on the merits and mostly from the horses' mouths. KFkairosfocus
April 6, 2022
April
04
Apr
6
06
2022
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT
Jerry, I chose key historical references that are in the original voices as summaries today were being brushed aside. And no there are not tens of thousands of my words in those comments. KFkairosfocus
April 6, 2022
April
04
Apr
6
06
2022
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
KF, you say you have answered my question, but you have not, or maybe it’s been lost in all your replies. Yes, Newton had a religious belief that God did it. Is “”God did it” a scientific explanation” is a separate question. Why can’t you provide a short answer?
Perfect example of
Provoking Kf is the most popular sport on UD because everyone knows he will use thousands of indecipherable words to answer for which he can then be criticized for his reply whatever it was.
By the way Kf did answer this in a way and it was short. See#86 which is in reference to my reply that answered this question.jerry
April 6, 2022
April
04
Apr
6
06
2022
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT
KF, you say you have answered my question, but you have not, or maybe it's been lost in all your replies. Yes, Newton had a religious belief that God did it. Is ""God did it" a scientific explanation" is a separate question. Why can't you provide a short answer?Viola Lee
April 6, 2022
April
04
Apr
6
06
2022
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT
Very little is from me so it cannot be that I am at fault here whatever your complaints
You chose them. There are tens of thousands of words in your own rhetoric also You are obviously completely unaware of what’s going on.jerry
April 6, 2022
April
04
Apr
6
06
2022
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT
I find it interesting that so far there has not been uptake on the Russian view of colour revolutions and linked considerations on 4th gen war. I think we are going beyond Schaeffer into a very dangerous time.kairosfocus
April 6, 2022
April
04
Apr
6
06
2022
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT
CD, I would settle for a good old fashioned Stoic patriot like Marcus Tullus Cicero:
, On the Republic, Bk 3: {22.} [33] L . . . True law is right reason in agreement with [--> our morally governed] nature , it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions. And it does not lay its commands or prohibitions upon good men in vain, though neither have any effect on the wicked. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to attempt to repeal any part of it [--> as universally binding core of law], and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people [--> as binding, universal, coeval with our humanity], and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. [--> sound conscience- guided reason will point out the core] And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is, God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst penalties, even if he escapes what is commonly considered punishment. . . . – Marcus Tullius Cicero, c. 55 - 54 BC
A Deist like Jefferson or Franklin would do, too. Has it dawned on you that I have been pointing to first duties of reason as built in intelligible law accessible to all who do not benumb consciences and endarken minds, on which modern liberty and constitutional democracy were actually built? A core of law that BTW is endorsed in both the OT and the NT, endorsed precisely as self evident? We are manifestly on a suicidal path as a civilisation as just our million more of our living posterity slaughtered per week and linked demographic collapse suffice to show. Now we have senior judges professing to not be able to identify what a woman is. Not good signs, and there are many more. KFkairosfocus
April 6, 2022
April
04
Apr
6
06
2022
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT
VL, you already had it from me. Now you have it from reference documentation. And Newton is not only a theist but a design thinker AND a Biblical Creationist, explicitly citing Paul as he quoted Cleanthes, on Mars Hill in Ac 17. Newton is a capital example as to why the science stopper rhetoric so beloved of those who attack design thinkers -- yes, it becomes very personal and even propagandistic -- is shattered irrecoverably. Evasions fail, the point is refuted by reference to the single most significant modern scientist. Also, the last of the Magi in the words of Keynes, who dealt with his papers. Going back, the corrective definition of 2005 is fully historically warranted. KFkairosfocus
April 6, 2022
April
04
Apr
6
06
2022
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT
CD, kindly see the above to Jerry. You are reacting to reference documentation; and we all know that when I summed up in my words it was treated as dubious. I trust Newton in Opticks, Query 31 and in the General Scholium to Principia, is sufficient. KFkairosfocus
April 6, 2022
April
04
Apr
6
06
2022
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
Jerry, if you will look above, you will see that I provided several pieces of reference documentation. Yes, Newton is hard to read, C17 English is not as today. Darwin and co are admittedly Victorian and Mahner a German but I believe the message is clear enough. Very little is from me so it cannot be that I am at fault here whatever your complaints. KFkairosfocus
April 6, 2022
April
04
Apr
6
06
2022
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT
But is “God did it” a scientific explanation?
Rudolf Diesel, patented the diesel engine . God ,patented all the life forms including Rudolf Diesel. Rudolf did it. God did it. Maybe you will not find the name of Rudolf Diesel inside the diesel engine components but if you have 1 sane neuron you will conclude that an intelligent person did it. A simple cell is a factory with thousands of motors operating with precision . Maybe you don't find the God's name inside the components of a cell but if you have 1 sane neuron you will conclude that an Intelligent Person did it.Lieutenant Commander Data
April 6, 2022
April
04
Apr
6
06
2022
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT
that without embracing Christianity we are all doomed….
As usual you are wrong. Nearly batting a thousand in being incorrect. Takes real talent though to be this consistently wrong.jerry
April 6, 2022
April
04
Apr
6
06
2022
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT
How about a short (100 words or less) answer
You have been answered. Why repeat this? Aside: when will Kf learn this is all about him and his style, not his ideas? By the way this comment about Kf is also is a repeat. Provoking Kf is the most popular sport on UD because everyone knows he will use thousands of indecipherable words to answer for which he can then be criticized for his reply whatever it was.jerry
April 6, 2022
April
04
Apr
6
06
2022
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT
KF writes, "Newton clearly thought God did it and then proceeded to produce the greatest breakthroughs in the history of modern science and mathematics." I've already said that a theistic perspective can lead one to investigate the order in the world. But is "God did it" a scientific explanation? How about a short (100 words or less) answer?Viola Lee
April 6, 2022
April
04
Apr
6
06
2022
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT
KF writes @ 9 re me and Sev:
[A]pparently, you think it is strange that people would have reasonable questions about the current dominant policy and cultural agenda of our civilisation and where it likely leads.
Not at all. What I find strange is the virtually impenetrable thicket of verbiage you think necessary to communicate one simple (and simplistic) idea: that without embracing Christianity we are all doomed....chuckdarwin
April 6, 2022
April
04
Apr
6
06
2022
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT
F/N: Moreover, Martin Mahner is a fairly active German author on materialism in science, ontological and methodological, so called. Here is a key remark he made on the matter: http://www.springerlink.com/content/b04008g7w0781308/fulltext.html#CR31
. . . metaphysical naturalism is a constitutive ontological principle of science in that the general empirical methods of science, such as observation, measurement and experiment, and thus the very production of empirical evidence, presuppose a no-supernature principle [--> recall, we are dealing with what is institutionally dominant, it matters not that some would disagree, this is a statement of where the Overton Window lies and what the power brokers think they have power to lock out, regardless of actual merits] . . . . Metaphysical or ontological naturalism (henceforth: ON) ["roughly" and "simply"] is the view that all that exists is our lawful spatiotemporal world. Its negation is of course supernaturalism: the view that our lawful spatiotemporal world is not all that exists because there is another non-spatiotemporal world transcending the natural one, whose inhabitants—usually considered to be intentional beings—are not subject to natural laws . . . . Both scientists and science educators keep being challenged by creationists of all shades, who try hard to reintroduce supernaturalist explanations into biology and into all the areas of science that concern the origin of the world in general and of human beings in particular. [--> Confession by projection? No merely human power class has a permanent empire. This too will fall.]
[--> of course he here glides by the point Plato highlighted in The Laws Bk X, natural vs artificial, and the linked point that it is empirically well founded that there are signs of intelligently directed configuration as cause, where a major goal and condition of credibility of science is that it seeks empirically supported truth about our world. Ideological capture of science and science education potentially has a ruinous cost.]
A major aspect of this debate is the role of ON in science . . . . ON is not part of a deductive argument in the sense that if we collected all the statements or theories of science and used them as premises, then ON would logically follow. After all, scientific theories do not explicitly talk about anything metaphysical such as the presence or absence of supernatural entities: they simply refer to natural entities and processes only. Therefore, ON rather is a tacit [= hidden, read between the lines] metaphysical supposition of science, an ontological postulate. It is part of a metascientific framework or, if preferred, of the metaparadigm of science that guides the construction and evaluation of theories, and that helps to explain why science works and succeeds in studying and explaining the world. [--> cat out of the bag.] ["The role of Metaphysical Naturalism in Science," Science and Education, 2011]
The matter is clear and any prudent educator or thinker on related subjects would avoid terminology that invites the Lewontin imposition, unless that is precisely what it is desired to enable. In that regard we can see further reasons to view the 2005 corrective definition of science for use in schools as prudent and well justified. KFkairosfocus
April 6, 2022
April
04
Apr
6
06
2022
01:13 AM
1
01
13
AM
PDT
VL, to further document my underlying point, I will now excerpt an October 13th, 1880 letter to Edward Bibbins Aveling (a physician, and Common Law husband of Eleanor Marx (1884), thus better known to history as Karl Marx's de facto son- in- law) in reference to requested remarks on a book by Aveling that sought to popularise Darwin's thought [apparently, The Student's Darwin. London: Freethought Publishing Co., 1881]. Charles Darwin went on record as follows:
. . . though I am a strong advocate for free thought [--> NB: free-thought is an old and frankly tendentious synonym for skepticism, agnosticism or atheism, which are often quite dogmatic as Lewontin et al showed] 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. [--> obviously, evolutionary materialistic scientism and/or fellow traveller ideologies] 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.
There is a term for that strategic option, the indirect approach; as Liddell Hart advocated. This letter makes it utterly clear that a key background motive for Darwin's theorising on origins science was to put God out of a job, thus indirectly undermining the plausibility of believing in God. Fair comment, in thinking and acting like this, Darwin probably believed that he was championing enlightenment and science-led progress in their path to victory over backward, irrational but emotionally clung-to beliefs, he patently imagined that the Christian Faith was backward superstition to be replaced by "science." Which, is a classic thesis of scientism. And so his strategy was to lead in a science that was in his mind showing just how outdated and ill-founded the Judaeo-Christian theism that had dominated the West since Constantine in the 300's was. In case the views just raised are doubted, here is the very same Aveling on Darwin, the Christian faith and clergy, shortly after his passing:
SINCE the death of our great teacher, the clergy, who denounced him aforetime with that volubility of which long practice in the art of vituperation has made them consummate masters, have claimed the illustrious dead as one of their flock . . . . those who are trying to effect a compromise between the irreconcilables, religion and scientific thought, from the Archbishop of Canterbury upwards, are assuring us that the great truths of Evolution are all in harmony with the Bible, and have been this long time embodied in more or less hidden guise in the teaching of the Church—that, in short, the discoveries of to-day are a godsend to religion, whilst less versatile thinkers had regarded them the rather as a god's end. All this might have been passed by with pity and a sigh for something more novel. But when these same persons tell us that Charles Darwin was a religious man and a Christian, a feeling other than one of pity is ours . . . . [Having been invited to lunch and at the end of the meal with a Dr Büchner of Germany, withdrawing to Darwin's study, so] once we were within the walls of his study, and he was sitting in most unconventional fashion in the large, well-worn easy chair, almost the first thing he said was, "Why do you call yourselves Atheists?" . . . . It was pointed out that the Greek ? was privative, not negative; that whilst we did not commit the folly of god-denial, we avoided with equal care the folly of god-assertion: that as god was not proven, we were without god (?????) and by consequence were with hope in this world, and in this world alone . . . with point after point of our argument he agreed; statement on statement that was made he endorsed, saying finally: "I am with you in thought, but I should prefer the word Agnostic to the word Atheist." Upon this the suggestion was made that, after all, "Agnostic" was but "Atheist" writ respectable, and "Atheist" was only "Agnostic" writ aggressive. To say that one did not know was the verbal equivalent of saying that one was destitute of the god-idea, whilst at the same time a sop was thrown to the Cerberus of society by the adoption of a name less determined and uncompromising. At this he smiled and asked: "Why should you be so aggressive? Is anything gained by trying to force these new ideas upon the mass of mankind? It is all very well for educated, cultured, thoughtful people; but are the masses yet ripe for it?" Then we asked him whether the same questions he now asked of us had not been addressed to him about the years 1859—60, when his immortal "Origin of Species" first saw the light. Many at that time had thought a greater wisdom would have been shown in only enunciating the revolutionary truths of Natural and Sexual Selection to the judicious few. Many had, as of old, dreaded the open declaration of truth to the multitudes. New ideas are always at first regarded as only for the study. Danger is feared if they are proclaimed abroad on the house-tops, and discussed in market-place and home. But he, happily for humanity, had by the gentle, irresistible power of reason, forced his new ideas upon the mass of the people. And the masses had been found ripe for it. Had he kept silence, the tremendous strides taken by human thought during the last twenty-one years would have been shorn of their fair proportions, perhaps had hardly been made at all. His own illustrious example was encouragement, was for a command to every thinker to make known to all his fellows that which he believed to be the truth. Then the talk fell upon Christianity, and these remarkable words were uttered: "I never gave up Christianity until I was forty years of age." I commend these words to the careful consideration of all and sundry who claimed the great naturalist as an orthodox Christian . . . [Aveling, E. B. 1883. The religious views of Charles Darwin. London: Freethought Publishing Company. In reply to this, Darwin's son, Francis wrote: "Dr. Aveling tried to show that the terms "Agnostic" and "Atheist" were practically equivalent—that an atheist is one who, without denying the existence of God, is without God, inasmuch as he is unconvinced of the existence of a Deity. My father's replies implied his preference for the unaggressive attitude of an Agnostic. Dr. Aveling seems (p. 5) to regard the absence of aggressiveness in my father's views as distinguishing them in an unessential manner from his own. But, in my judgment, it is precisely differences of this kind which distinguish him so completely from the class of thinkers to which Dr. Aveling belongs."]
Of course, we here meet a clever rhetorical redefinition of atheism. A more frank and truthful summary is that, instead: atheism normally and across many centuries is understood as the active, even aggressive, denial of the reality of God, not merely doubting it while pretending to know enough that were there good warrant one of such erudition and brilliance would be well aware of it. Which, is of course the reason why Francis Darwin emphasises the difference between Agnosticism and Atheism in his own onward response as cited. But, from the pen of Aveling, and the association of Dr. Ludwig Büchner, of Darmstadt, president of The International Federation of Freethinkers Congress in London on September 25th, 26th, 27th of 1881, we have a clear enough picture on Darwin's views on Religion and how this intersected with his theory and its expected effect on the masses. In particular, Darwin was plainly of the view that the Christian faith is ill-founded, that there is no clear warrant for confidence in the reality of God, and that gradual scientific enlightenment would so undermine the Christian faith and theism that eventually an "enlightened" era under the name science would emerge. God's reality would not so much be hotly dismissed but rather viewed as increasingly doubtful and irrelevant to the world of informed thought. Unsurprisingly, then, once Darwinian thought on the origin of the varieties of life had triumphed in the academy, in education and in the popular media, for the first time in history Atheism became a movement with a mass following. The prestige of Big-S Science was harnessed to enable men in turning their backs on God. But it turns out that Darwin's theories and descendants to today have not actually provided an empirically well warranted account of the blind watchmaker dynamics by which functionally specific complex organisation and/or associated information [FSCO/I] originated in the first living cell or in life forms exhibiting dozens of diverse main body plans. Indeed, what is empirically warranted instead, is that FSCO/I is a reliable sign of intelligently directed configuration as key causal factor. Accordingly, Philip Johnson was right in his reply to Lewontin:
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.
[--> notice, the power of an undisclosed, question-begging, controlling assumption . . . often put up as if it were a mere reasonable methodological constraint; emphasis added. Let us note how Rational Wiki, so-called, presents it:
"Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific "dead ends" and God of the gaps-type hypotheses." [NB: I am aware that Rational Wiki has backed away, un-announced, from the cat-out-of-the-bag direct phrasing that was in place a few years ago. That historic phrasing is still valid as a summary of what is going on.]
Of course, this ideological imposition on science that subverts it from freely seeking the empirically, observationally anchored truth about our world pivots on the deception of side-stepping the obvious fact since Plato in The Laws Bk X, that there is a second, readily empirically testable and observable alternative to "natural vs [the suspect] supernatural." Namely, blind chance and/or mechanical necessity [= the natural] vs the ART-ificial, the latter acting by evident intelligently directed configuration. [Cf Plantinga's reply here and here.] And as for the god of the gaps canard, the issue is, inference to best explanation across competing live option candidates. If chance and necessity is a candidate, so is intelligence acting by art through design. And it is not an appeal to ever- diminishing- ignorance to point out that design, rooted in intelligent action, routinely configures systems exhibiting functionally specific, often fine tuned complex organisation and associated information. Nor, that it is the only observed cause of such, nor that the search challenge of our observed cosmos makes it maximally implausible that blind chance and/or mechanical necessity can account for such.]
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.]
KFkairosfocus
April 6, 2022
April
04
Apr
6
06
2022
12:36 AM
12
12
36
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6

Leave a Reply