Neil Thomas’s next book will examine Darwinism as a modern creation myth

_{Denyse O'Leary

November 17, 2021

Culture, Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Philosophy}

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

British humanities prof Neil Thomas, author of Taking Leave of Darwin (2021), explains:

After seeing my recent book through to publication, I began to experience the gnawing feeling that, although I had undoubtedly given it my best shot, I had not completely “nailed” the puzzling phenomenon of just why the Western world had come to accept ideas of evolution and natural selection which I personally had come to see as little but Victorian fables or, more politely phrased, cosmogenic myths for a materialist age. I therefore decided to embark on a companion volume, provisionally titled False Messiah: Darwin’s Origin of Species as Cosmogenic Myth. Here I will make the attempt to drill down even further to the root causes of what appeared to be the Western world’s unprecedented rejection of tried-and-tested philosophers and scientists such as Aristotle, Cicero, Plato, and the physician Galen in a strange capitulation to “out there” philosophic fantasists like Epicurus and his Roman disciple, Lucretius.
Neil Thomas, “How I Came to Take Leave of Darwin: A Coda” at Evolution News and Science Today (November 15, 2021)

Darwin came along and made it all sound like… modern science!

That makes a lot of sense. The best way to understand Darwinism is as the creation myth of naturalism: Nothing Randomly Produced Things That Don’t Matter. And Thinking About It Is an Illusion. So Trust the Science.

You may also wish to read: Privileged Address: An excerpt from Neil Thomas’s Taking Leave of Darwin

Comments

And to make matters even worse for atheists, it is now also shown that we have a moral intuition that transcends space and time. Specifically, the following meta-analysis of 26 reports published between 1978 and 2010 found that, when testing “arousing vs. neutral stimuli” that “if you were tuned into your body, you might be able to detect these anticipatory changes, (of ‘arousing’ stimuli), between two and 10 seconds beforehand,,”
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 update: Predictive physiological anticipatory activity preceding seemingly unpredictable stimuli: An update of Mossbridge et al’s meta-analysis – 2018 Discussion This update of the Mossbridge et al. (2012) meta-analysis related to the so called predictive anticipatory activity (PAA) responses to future random stimuli, covers the period January 2008- July 2018. Overall, we found 19 new studies describing a total of 36 effect sizes. Differently from the statistical approach of Mossbridge et al., in this meta-analysis we used a frequentist and a Bayesian multilevel model which allows an analysis of all effect sizes reported within a single study instead of averaging them. Both the frequentist and the Bayesian analyses converged on similar results, making our findings quite robust. ,,, Conclusion This update confirms the main results reported in Mossbridge et al. (2012) original meta-analysis and gives further support to the hypothesis of predictive physiological anticipatory activity of future random events. This phenomenon may hence be considered among the more reliable within those covered under the umbrella term “psi” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6124390/
Of related note, the preceding studies satisfy Kant's criteria for the moral argument for God to be considered valid.
“the objective reality of the Idea of God, as moral author of the world, cannot be established by physical purposes alone. But nevertheless, if the cognition of these (physical) purposes is combined with moral purposes, they are of great importance to the practical reality of the Idea (of God).” Antoine Suarez – God, Immanuel Kant, Richard Dawkins, and the Quantum. – 8:03 minute mark https://youtu.be/EQOwMX4bCqk?t=483
In short, as Dr Suarez explained in the video, Kant’s requirement for the moral argument for God to be considered valid was that influences could somehow arise from outside space-time. Thus besides logical necessity, and the self-contradictory way that atheists themselves live their lives, the Christian Theist also has several lines of fairly powerful empirical evidence that he can also appeal to so as to establish the reality of objective morality.
Matthew 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
bornagain77_{November 22, 2021
November
11
Nov
22
22
2021
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT}

Es58, well if you are going to hold that evil really does not exist then you forsake moral realism altogether. You might not see that as a irresolvable dilemma for atheists, but I sure as heck do, As Michael Egnor states in the following article, "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.,,,"
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/
Moreover, although atheists may claim they do not believe that evil actually exists, the way they live their lives directly contradicts what they claim to believe. In the following article subtitled “When Evolutionary Materialists Admit that Their Own Worldview Fails”, Nancy Pearcey quotes many more leading atheists who honestly admit that it would be impossible for them to actually live their lives as if atheistic materialism were actually true.
Darwin's Robots: When Evolutionary Materialists Admit that Their Own Worldview Fails - Nancy Pearcey - April 23, 2015 Excerpt: 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
And as the following article succinctly states: "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
Even Richard Dawkins himself honestly admitted that it would be quote unquote 'intolerable' for him to live his life as if his atheistic materialism were actually true and as if there actually was no moral accountability for what people do,
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
As should be needless to say, this impossibility for Atheists to live their lives as if atheism were actually true, and as if objective morality does not actually exist, directly undermines their claim that Atheism is true. Specifically, if it is impossible for you to live your life consistently as if atheistic materialism were actually true, then atheistic materialism cannot possibly reflect reality as it really is but atheistic materialism 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, it is not just that the atheist's claim that objective morality does not actually exist is directly contradicted by the way atheists themselves live their lives, but many lines of empirical evidence also establish the reality of objective morality. For instance, although Darwinian atheists are at a complete loss to explain where even a single protein came from,,,
Dan S. Tawfik Group - The New View of Proteins - Tyler Hampton - 2016 Excerpt: Tawfik soberly recognizes the problem. The appearance of early protein families, he has remarked, is “something like close to a miracle.”45,,, “In fact, to our knowledge,” Tawfik and Tóth-Petróczy write, “no macromutations ... that gave birth to novel proteins have yet been identified.”69 http://inference-review.com/article/the-new-view-of-proteins
Although Darwinian atheists are at a complete loss to explain where even a single protein came from, we find that the expression of gene networks is 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, as if that was not bad enough for Darwinian atheists, and to make matters all the worse for Darwinists, the objective existence of altruistic, self-sacrificial, morality, (in direct contradiction to 'survival of the fittest' morality), must precede the existence of multicellular life in order for multicellular life to even be possible in the first place. Several notes backing up that claim can be found here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/is-there-such-a-thing-as-morality-or-ethics/#comment-738586bornagain77_{November 22, 2021
November
11
Nov
22
22
2021
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT}

Ba77@17 - literally the devil's advocate here, but: don't know if this has been addressed (if so please reference post#) but why isn't it sufficient in problem of evil to show "internal" inconsistency, as in, according to us, evil doesn't exist, but, according to *you*, who hold that evil does exist, the problem is a real problem?es58_{November 22, 2021
November
11
Nov
22
22
2021
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT}

Zweston @53, Yes, I noticed. Instead we get an irrelevant Shakespeare quote. I can play that silly game, too: "Methinks it is like a weasel." To the OP, yes, Darwinism has all the characteristics of a culturally convenient Victorian pseudo-scientific myth that justified European colonialism and racism. In its 150+ year life, it's rationalized brutal exploitation of "savages" as described in Darwin's Descent of Man, which has been quoted numerous times here, an justified racial genocide as also frequently noted. As a myth, it doesn't seem to matter to the Darwinist fundamentalists that it's been falsified and embarrassed numerous times over the decades without apparent effect, except perhaps to create numerous "heretics." But people who don't understand transpiration, for example, cannot conceive of questioning their faith in Darwin despite all the overwhelming evidence against it. I'd like to hear their thoughts on how humans are continuing to evolve in context of racial differences. Unless they think evolution has magically stopped for some unknown reason. But it's a target rich environment and we'll just waste our time. -QQuerius_{November 20, 2021
November
11
Nov
20
20
2021
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT}

Notice how completely not on subject we get to by the bottom of the thread due to being derailed by tangents... CD & Sev, have you ever doubted macroevolution? Why or why not? What arguments and findings are the strongest for the ID movement? Would it bother you if you were wrong about darwinism/materialism? Why or why not?zweston_{November 20, 2021
November
11
Nov
20
20
2021
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT}

The lady doth protest too much, methinks. -Queen Gertrude (Hamlet)chuckdarwin_{November 20, 2021
November
11
Nov
20
20
2021
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT}

Regardless, there's still a problem with Chuckdarwin's evasions. He previously wrote
I merely pointed out that the term transpiration is commonly used by biologists to describe the entire process of absorption and elimination of water and nutrients in plants.
The sources I checked indicate that some nutrients are indeed transported by the xylem--I stand corrected on that point--but that's not the impression one gets from reading the description that I quoted above about the operation of the xylem. However, he still refuses to address his previous statements on transpiration, which is actually how water exits a plant, typically through the undersides of their leaves. To insist that "transpiration" is the term "commonly used by biologists" to describe the passage of water through a plant is as misleading as claiming that "evaporation" is the term used by meteorologists to describe the water cycle. In contrast, I have no problem admitting it when I'm in error and I learn something as a result. -QQuerius_{November 20, 2021
November
11
Nov
20
20
2021
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT}

You folks are truly incorrigible. Querius misrepresents my prior posts and then has the cheek to call me dishonest. From the Biology Library, Section 25.4B: Vascular Tissue: Xylem and Phloem:
Xylem and phloem form the vascular system of plants to transport water and other substances throughout the plant... Key Points -Xylem transports and stores water and water-soluble nutrients in vascular plants. -Phloem is responsible for transporting sugars, proteins, and other organic molecules in plants. -Vascular plants are able to grow higher than other plants due to the rigidity of xylem cells, which support the plant. https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_and_General_Biology/Book%3A_General_Biology_(Boundless)/25%3A_Seedless_Plants/25.4%3A_Seedless_Vascular_Plants/25.4B%3A_Vascular_Tissue%3A_Xylem_and_Phloem (my emphasis)
chuckdarwin_{November 20, 2021
November
11
Nov
20
20
2021
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT}

Jerry @47,
Duck and run at its best.
Yes, exactly. This illustrates the type of evasion, misinformation, and trolling that we often see here. I'm not complaining about honest disagreement on certain points, which is fine and usually represents different levels of knowledge, values, or presumptions. Honest discussions are valuable for clarifying one's own thoughts as well a appreciating the information and insights of others. But this sort of evasion is dishonest. So, do you think we'll see a retraction by Chuckdarwin about his implication that the xylem transports both water and nutrients? I doubt it. And that's my point. -QQuerius_{November 20, 2021
November
11
Nov
20
20
2021
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT}

seversky:
The theory of evolution does not prescribe how human beings should behave towards one another
There isn't any scientific theory of evolution. However, if you tell people that they are the result of blind and mindless processes you are going to get people who act like other animals. Don't blame us because you are too stupid to understand that your lies have consequences.ET_{November 20, 2021
November
11
Nov
20
20
2021
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

The point, Querius, is that you blatantly misrepresented what I posted.
Duck and run at its best.jerry_{November 20, 2021
November
11
Nov
20
20
2021
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

The point, Querius, is that you blatantly misrepresented what I posted.chuckdarwin_{November 20, 2021
November
11
Nov
20
20
2021
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT}

Chuckdarwin @40,
I believe that I merely pointed out that the term transpiration is commonly used by biologists to describe the entire process of absorption and elimination of water and nutrients in plants.
And that makes as much sense as calling "evaporation" the entire water cycle process of phase-changes (evaporation, condensation, freezing, melting, absorption, sublimation, and precipitation) in the atmosphere, bodies of water, and on the ground, not to mention orographic lifting and a variety of interactions of warm and cold fronts. You might want to brush up on how osmosis works with root hairs, capillary action in the xylem (caused by molecular cohesion and adhesion), and transpiration through stomata and removed by evaporation. My point is that if you're inflexible with respect to a terminology issue in biology, which may not be your forte, how much less likely are you to being reasonable regarding Darwinism, morality, and philosophical issues? And by the way, transpiration doesn't involve nutrients, which are transported through the phloem, not the xylem. Do you see my point? -QQuerius_{November 20, 2021
November
11
Nov
20
20
2021
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT}

I’m done–Ciao
What happened? Did you sense you could make additional comments and not have to respond?
definitions of good and evil
Be the first to define good and evil in the history of mankind. No one else has done it here. Usually attempts come down to stuff I like and stuff I don’t like. Interesting that ChuckDarwin now wants to contribute to the morality discussion when no accepted definition of morality exists here. My guess is that we will witness more duck and run.jerry_{November 20, 2021
November
11
Nov
20
20
2021
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT}

PS Moral relativism is not the opposite of objective morality. It is the opposite of absolute morality …….chuckdarwin_{November 20, 2021
November
11
Nov
20
20
2021
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT}

#32 EDTA #36 Seversky
If objective morality arises any time two or more people agree on something, then if they agree to change their minds, that must also give rise to objective morality. So this type of morality can change any time people change their minds to the same alternative. But that is relativism almost by definition; nothing objective about it.
Following on from Seversky's excellent comments, you are confusing "objective" morality with "absolute" morality. This problem results from different and inconsistent uses of the term "objective." Religion advocates for "absolute" morality, morality which, in principle, derives from a god, which is applicable to everyone, contains no exceptions or mitigations, is non-negotiable and unchanging. It is what, in fact, Christian apologists have mis-labeled "objective" morality. It's important to go back to the original context. Bornagain suggests that Epicurus' argument from evil in rejecting a personal God, fails because in order to say evil exists, we need to appeal to this mis-labeled "objective" morality. I don't agree with this for a number of reasons, but pertinent to his objection is the notion that without "objective" morality (i.e., God-given) there is no basis to conclude that evil exits. My argument is simply that objective morality (i.e., definitions of good and evil) clearly exists, without the necessity of appealing to any divine source, such that Epicurus' argument is derivable solely by reference to man-made or objective morality. Consensus is not the only way objective morality can arise, but that is another topic and way beyond the scope of Epicurus' original argument. Finally, an interesting aside is that most competent Christian philosophers understand this distinction and rarely attack Epicurus' second premise (that evil exists) as invalid without appealing to a God-given morality.chuckdarwin_{November 20, 2021
November
11
Nov
20
20
2021
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT}

. Chuck is forced to pretend not to know how a cell specifies the amino acids in a protein. (A process discovered and described more than half a century ago). He will have no regrets.Upright BiPed_{November 20, 2021
November
11
Nov
20
20
2021
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT}

#28 & 34 Upright Bipedal Your question would probably be better directed to a geneticist. I’m not an expert on transfer RNA. Querius I don’t believe that I argued “against” transpiration as the evaporation of water from the leaf stomata. Although I don’t have perfect recall, I believe that I merely pointed out that the term transpiration is commonly used by biologists to describe the entire process of absorption and elimination of water and nutrients in plants.chuckdarwin_{November 20, 2021
November
11
Nov
20
20
2021
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT}

Sev, somehow you miss the implications of the darwinistic/materialistic worldview. Materialism hinges on darwinism. If you are materialist, you can't judge anyones morality because you have no standard to judge it on. I'm not saying you cannot be moral (relative to others) it is that you have no actual foundation or "why".... what Is good? Define it? I said the materialist foundation of morality is bankrupt. And I noticed conveniently you dismissed my request to provide a robust rebuttal/summary of the arguments against darwinism to communicate that you indeed have interacted with the data, understand it, and still reject it. You don't want to be pinned down, so you pick on one comment, and then try to get everyone chasing rabbits. You are a slippery one, indeed. I notice you also didn't interact about the complete lack of genuine purpose or meaning attached to naturalism eitherzweston_{November 20, 2021
November
11
Nov
20
20
2021
04:41 AM
4
04
41
AM
PDT}

Zweston/29
If you aren’t just trolling, then grant you are bankrupt on a moral foundation and purpose and demonstrate you have a full grasp of what Darwinist skeptics know and state as their strongest counter claims. Show us you understand our position fully and still reject it. That would be refreshing.
The theory of evolution does not prescribe how human beings should behave towards one another. That was never its purpose. Just as the Bible is not a scientific account of humanity's early years, That was never its purpose either. If secular humanists are skeptical about Christian claims for the supremacy of their moral beliefs it's because humanists see those claims as incoherent and even contradictory. You are in no position to allege the moral bankruptcy of others when the foundations of your own beliefs are so shaky.Seversky_{November 19, 2021
November
11
Nov
19
19
2021
08:36 PM
8
08
36
PM
PDT}

So which was the objective morality, the before or after?
Or the yet to come?Joe Schooner_{November 19, 2021
November
11
Nov
19
19
2021
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PDT}

EDTA/32
If objective morality arises any time two or more people agree on something, then if they agree to change their minds, that must also give rise to objective morality. So this type of morality can change any time people change their minds to the same alternative. But that is relativism almost by definition; nothing objective about it.
Yet don't we observe morality changing over time? We no longer consider it acceptable to sacrifice human beings to propitiate whatever god we believed needed to be propitiated. We no longer believe that human beings can be the wholly-owned property of other human beings which is why we did away with slavery (eventually). We no longer believe women are chattel that husbands or families can dispose of as they choose. They have - relatively recently - achieved (nominal) equality to and independence from men (in some cultures, at least). So which was the objective morality, the before or after?Seversky_{November 19, 2021
November
11
Nov
19
19
2021
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PDT}

If a morality conceived in the mind of an individual is purely subjective because it disappears when that mind does then the same is presumably true of moralities conceived in the minds of any number of individuals. If those many individual moralities are found to be in agreement on certain moral principles does that make those shared principles objective or simply consensual? How are the moral prescriptions dispensed by the Christian God anything other than subjective concepts in the mind of another individual being, albeit one immeasurably more knowledgeable and powerful than you or I? Is the Christian claiming here that might makes right?Seversky_{November 19, 2021
November
11
Nov
19
19
2021
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT}

Upright Biped @28,
… and Chuck, why don’t you go ahead and take the opportunity to answer the question I’ve asked you time and time again? When the first ever aaRS constraint was synthesized from quiescent memory, how many of the other constraints had to be in place?
Same experience here. Since he recently argued against the idea that "transpiration" is the loss of water from the leaves of plants, I can guess why he's never answered your questions. -QQuerius_{November 19, 2021
November
11
Nov
19
19
2021
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77 @22, Thank you--great segue into the most important stone that God moved! -QQuerius_{November 19, 2021
November
11
Nov
19
19
2021
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PDT}

If objective morality arises any time two or more people agree on something, then if they agree to change their minds, that must also give rise to objective morality. So this type of morality can change any time people change their minds to the same alternative. But that is relativism almost by definition; nothing objective about it.EDTA_{November 19, 2021
November
11
Nov
19
19
2021
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT}

Further to CD's claim, "Objective morality arises any time two or more people agree on the “rules of the road.” It is a human creation." To remind CD, on the premises of his atheistic materialism, people don't actually exist as real 'persons' but only as neuronal illusions,
The Brain: The Mystery of Consciousness – Monday, Jan. 29, 2007 Part II THE ILLUSION OF CONTROL Another startling conclusion from the science of consciousness is that the intuitive feeling we have that there’s an executive “I” that sits in a control room of our brain, scanning the screens of the senses and pushing the buttons of the muscles, is an illusion. Steven Pinker – Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University http://www.academia.edu/2794859/The_Brain_The_Mystery_of_Consciousness
,,, and neither do humans with a specific human nature actually exist, only only a collection of somewhat similar individuals which happen to resemble each other today but will not tomorrow.
Darwin, Design & Thomas Aquinas The Mythical Conflict Between Thomism & Intelligent Design by Logan Paul Gage Excerpt:,,, Darwin reduced species to “mere epiphenomena of matter in motion.” What we call a “dog,” in other words, is really just an arbitrary snapshot of the way things look at present. If we take the Darwinian view, Wiker suggests, there is no species “dog” but only a collection of individuals, connected in a long chain of changing shapes, which happen to resemble each other today but will not tomorrow. What About Man? Now we see Chesterton’s point. Man, the universal, does not really exist. According to the late Stanley Jaki, Chesterton detested Darwinism because “it abolishes forms and all that goes with them, including that deepest kind of ontological form which is the immortal human soul.” And if one does not believe in universals, there can be, by extension, no human nature—only a collection of somewhat similar individuals.,,, https://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=23-06-037-f
Moreover, these people who are having illusions of being persons, who are having an illusion that they have a human nature, don't even have the capacity, via their own volition, to agree on anything, morality or otherwise, since, again on the premises of your atheistic materialism, free will is also held to be an illusion.
THE ILLUSION OF FREE WILL - Sam Harris - 2012 Excerpt: "Free will is an illusion so convincing that people simply refuse to believe that we don’t have it." - Jerry Coyne https://samharris.org/the-illusion-of-free-will/
Thus CD, your claim that "Objective morality arises any time two or more people agree on the “rules of the road.” It is a human creation" can't even get out of the starting gate before it crashes and burns into catastrophic epistemological failure.. As I noted earlier, your atheistic materialism is 'putridly indefensible'.bornagain77_{November 19, 2021
November
11
Nov
19
19
2021
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

Objective morality arises any time two or more people agree on the “rules of the road.” It is a human creation.
No! Objective morality flows from the nature of humans not created by humans. What is good/ethical/moral is what leads to the fulfillment of these objectives. The main objective of humans is survival. So good/ethical/moral actions are what leads to survival. This is universal across all human groups and are not usually culturally specific. There are other objectives which can usually be placed under the broad concept of thriving/flourishing. So good/ethical/moral actions are what leads to these objectives. These are often culturally specific so can vary over various groups. But all humans want these types of objectives.
I’m done–Ciao
Translation. I cannot support most of what I say so don’t expect me to answer questions.jerry_{November 19, 2021
November
11
Nov
19
19
2021
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT}

Can CD and Sev change their names to "Devil's advocate" and "Black Knight of the Holy Grail".... If I were running the site, I'd have to have someone like them to keep stimulating conversation.... If you aren't just trolling, then grant you are bankrupt on a moral foundation and purpose and demonstrate you have a full grasp of what Darwinist skeptics know and state as their strongest counter claims. Show us you understand our position fully and still reject it. That would be refreshing.zweston_{November 19, 2021
November
11
Nov
19
19
2021
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT}

. … and Chuck, why don’t you go ahead and take the opportunity to answer the question I’ve asked you time and time again? When the first ever aaRS constraint was synthesized from quiescent memory, how many of the other constraints had to be in place?Upright BiPed_{November 19, 2021
November
11
Nov
19
19
2021
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply