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
“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.”
I love this. So well put!
Of course we are not disparaging real science – science that uses the scientific method to verify/falsify hypotheses, but when it comes to origins, science has real limitations.
Science is good at helping us understand how things WORK, but it is not very good at helping us understand how things CAME TO BE.
Looks like the Discovery Institute has found a new BFF in Prof. Thomas. Thomas is certainly entitled to his opinions, but one should be leery of getting one’s science from retired humanities professors. One thing about the quoted passage is troubling. Thomas characterizes Epicurus and Lucretius as “‘out there’ philosophic fantasists.” In reality, Epicurus was, and remains, one of the most influential philosophers in western thought. Unlike the elitist Plato, whom Epicurus rejected, Epicurus openly welcomed women and slaves to participate in his school. I suspect that Thomas’ revulsion with Epicurus is that he is considered to be one of the first and most influential of the empiricists, contra Plato. Likewise with Lucretius who also was, and is, deeply influential and rightfully can be characterized as the forbearer of the theory of evolution.
For a DI fellow traveler like Thomas to characterize Epicurus and Lucretius as ” out there fantasists” is, as the English say, pretty “cheeky.”
Since ChuckyD has now seen fit to defend the putridly indefensible philosophy of Epicurus and Lucretius, it is worth quoting Thomas in full past what News quoted,
It is also worth pointing out that David Hume himself, (who supposedly rehabilitated Epicurus and Lucretius), is, by all rights, to be considered nothing but a two-bit ‘philosophical thief’ who stole the ‘miraculous’ laws of nature away from the Christian founders of modern science who, via their belief in God, discovered them in the first place. i.e. Hume declared that the laws of nature, apparently by his own personal decree, to be completely ‘natural’ with no need of God to explain their existence.
Specifically David Hume stated, “A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature;”
After self-servingly presupposing that the laws of nature are completely natural with no need of God to explain their existence, David Hume, in the same passage, goes on to argue that, basically, since a man rising from the dead would violate the laws of nature, then Jesus resurrection from the dead is a violation of the laws of nature and is therefore impossible.
Yet, David Hume, as an atheist, simply had no right whatsoever to presuppose that the laws of nature are completely natural with no need of God to explain their existence.
In 2007 Paul Davies stated, “,,, the very notion of physical law is a theological one in the first place, a fact that makes many scientists squirm. Isaac Newton first got the idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws from the Christian doctrine that God created the world and ordered it in a rational way. Christians envisage God as upholding the natural order from beyond the universe,,,”
And as C.S. Lewis stated, “Men became scientific because they expected law in nature, and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver.”
Again. atheists, especially with their a-priori metaphysical assumption that the ‘the universe is a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed, (Paul Davies; 1995)’ simply have no right whatsoever to presuppose that the laws of nature are completely natural.
Atheists, with their ‘bottom up’ materialistic explanations, simply have no clue why there should even be universal laws that govern the universe in the first place:
Einstein himself stated, “You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way”,,,
Likewise, Eugene Wigner also stated, “It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here, quite comparable in its striking nature to the miracle that the human mind can string a thousand arguments together without getting itself into contradictions, or to the two miracles of the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind’s capacity to divine them.,,,”
Thus for David Hume, again an atheistic philosopher, to self-servingly presuppose that the laws of nature are completely natural with no need of God to explain their existence wass a severely disingenuous and dishonest thing for him to do.
All of modern science was born out of the Christian presupposition that God ‘miraculously’ upholds this universe via His laws of nature. For modern examples, there is Faraday and Maxwell and even Max Planck himself,,,
So again, I hold that David Hume, an atheist, was basically a two-bit ‘philosophical thief’ who stole the ‘miraculous’ laws of nature away from the Christian founders of modern science who first discovered them.
Epicurus was a materialist. Materialism is a failed philosophy.
The reason that Epicurus so infuriates Christian apologists (e.g.. “putridly indefensible”) is his iron-clad argument from evil against existence of the personal God of monotheism as first envisioned by Judaism and then adopted by Christianity. Despite extravagant and self-laudatory claims, the most famous by Alvin Plantinga (The Nature of Necessity, Chapter IX, Sec. 8, “The Free Will Defense Triumphant”), that they have defeated or asserted a successful theodicy negating Epicurus’ argument, Christian philosophers have never been able to make a dent in the argument. See Bradley, R., “The Free Will Defense Refuted and God’s Existence Disproved,” 2007 (https://infidels.org/library/modern/raymond-bradley-fwd-refuted/)
ChuckyD still pretends as if the putridly indefensible atheistic materialism of Epicurus is even semi-coherent.
Yet, if the atheistic materialism of Epicurus is actually true, then neither ChuckyD nor Epicurus, actually exists, and/or existed, as real persons, much less can any of their sentences ever mean anything. Which pretty much, (granting for the sake of argument that they exist, and/or existed, as real persons ), renders any arguments they may have, or had, for atheistic materialism null and void.
You don’t have to take my word for it. Atheist Alex Rosenberg, professor of philosophy at Duke University, spells out the implications of atheistic materialism in his book “The Atheist’s Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions”.
I strongly suggest watching Dr. Craig’s following presentation of the 8 points to get a full feel for just how insane the metaphysical naturalist’s (atheistic materialist’s) position actually is.
And here is Alex Rosenberg, in his own words, denying that he actually exists as a real person:
Now ChuckyD, ‘you’ may personally think that embracing a philosophy that denies that ‘you’ even exist as a real person is a coherent position for ‘you’ to take, but why should “I”, i.e. a real person, even care what ‘you’, an illusion of a person, have to say about reality? ‘You’, by your own philosophical presupposition of atheistic materialism, are nothing but an illusion. And Illusions, by definition, only distort our perception of reality. Thus ‘I’, by all rights, a real person, should ignore everything ‘you’, an illusion of a person, say, and/or write, since it will, by definition, only distort my perception of reality!
Bornagain–
If I don’t exist, why do you keep responding to my posts? Also, this is about the fourth or fifth time you’ve responded to my posts with WLC’s silly little syllogisms. I get it, you think WLC is the bees knees. I beg you, please get some fresh material….
ChuckyD, asks “If I don’t exist, why do you keep responding to my posts?”
But alas, it is not I, but your own insane philosophy of atheistic materialism, that denies you exist as a real person. Of course I, as a Christian, believe you are a real person, i.e. a real ‘soul’.
You complain about my repeated use of WLC’s refutation of Atheist Alex Rosenberg’s book “The Atheist’s Guide to Reality”.
Okie Dokie, here are other leading atheistic materialists who make the same insane claim that they do not really exist as real persons
And again, why should “I”, i.e. a real person, even care what ‘you’, an illusion of a person, have to say about reality? ‘You’, by your own philosophical presupposition of atheistic materialism, are nothing but an illusion. And Illusions, by definition, only distort our perception of reality. Thus ‘I’, by all rights, a real person, should ignore everything ‘you’, an illusion of a person, say, and/or write, since it will, by definition, only distort my perception of reality!
Bornagain
That’s the best idea you’ve had since I’ve started following this website. And you managed to say it in 25 words or less……
Bornagain77 @8,
Great response!
Let me suggest one clarification to your question:
“And again, why should “I”, i.e. a real person, even care what ‘you’, who considers himself an illusion of a person, have to say about reality?”
If a premise someone is working from is false, then their conclusions are most likely false.
However, I admit that chatbots/trollbots are getting better and better, so I’m not confident that none of the people posting vacuous trolls here aren’t actually A.I. illusions of individuals after all.
-Q
“I’m not confident that none of the people posting vacuous trolls here aren’t actually A.I. illusions of individuals after all.”
Ha Ha Ha 🙂
https://giphy.com/explore/haha
Of semi-related philosophical note:
Once again trolls, like ChuckyD, introduce a side issue, the issue here is that Darwinism is a creation myth as myths are classified.
To correct a misconception he seems have about Epicurus; Epicurus actually espoused the existence of gods whom he placed in the intervals between infinite worlds, where they passed an undisturbed life and enjoyed happiness.
The first part of his Principles specifically begins with his advice to have a right understanding of gods.
Back to the point, CD, set out why Darwinism is not a creation myth.
Bornagain 77 @11,
Chesterton makes a brilliant observation as usual.
Chatbots/trollbots can pull text from a library of inflammatory comments in response to certain keywords in the message they’re responding to. That’s why they repeatedly bring up the same falsified assertions. Also, when you dig a little deeper in the subject area, their knowledge seems shallow or flawed as we saw, for example, in a previous conversation about transpiration in plants. Also, trollbots don’t do their own research or bring anything new or interesting to a subject, they just scoff or assign “homework” to people rather looking up the references themselves.
As a result, chatbots/trollbots succeed in wasting everyone’s time, except that the interchange might be helpful for people unfamiliar with a subject.
-Q
Belfast @13,
Yes, exactly. Thanks for the background on Epicurus. Sounds like the gods he envisioned would then be “spaced” between the universes in the Multiverse.
Multiverse, of course, is the name of a giant cosmic turtle that lays eggs, which become universes. (wink)
-Q
Not the trollbots waste somobody’s time it’s somebody that falls into the trap of “teaching” the trollbots .
#12 Belfast
Thomas’ trashing of Epicurus and Lucretius is not a side issue, it goes to the heart of materialism vs. supernaturalism.
Darwinism, or formally, natural selection operating on random variation, both inter- and intra-specifically, is not a creation myth, (or what Thomas incorrectly calls a “cosmogenic myth”) because, it has nothing to do with creation of the world or life. Every biologist, and, in fact, most philosophers, know this. This is where Thomas’ biological ignorance betrays him. However, ignorance is no excuse for you or Thomas, because the scope of Darwinism is defined in the very title of the book. Darwin’s The Origin of Speciesdoes not speak to either the origin of the cosmos (universe) or the origin of life (human or non-human).
Finally, I have no misconceptions about Epicurus’ deism. But that is not relevant to my post which referenced Epicurus’ argument from evil vis a vis the personal God of Judaism, and, ultimately Christianity.
To demonstrate how all atheists’ arguments are, in the end, self refuting nonsense, I will take Epicurus’ argument from evil. which ChuckyD fancies to be a rock solid argument against God, and show how it collapses in on itself with just minimal scrutiny.
In the preceding argument from evil, in premise 2, it is held that evil exists.
But this is self defeating position for atheists to be in. As David Wood puts it, “By declaring that suffering is evil, atheists have admitted that there is an objective moral standard by which we distinguish good and evil.”
Which is to say, for evil to even exist there must, of necessity, be some objective standard of moral perfection, i.e. God, that has been departed from.
As C.S. Lewis, (an ex-atheist turned Christian), put the irresolvable dilemma that atheists face in their argument from evil. ““My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?,,,”
Thus atheists, by declaring that evil exists in their argument from evil, and apparently unbeknownst to themselves, have presupposed the very existence of God in their argument.
As Peter Kreeft succinctly put it, “If Good and Evil Exist, God (necessarily) Exists”
In short, their argument from evil is, like all other arguments atheists use, a self-refuting argument.
Here are a few more notes:
Verse:
CD,
Interesting that Bradley ends his essay with an argument that uses a human principle/law as one of its premises. Bradley seems oblivious to the irony of indirectly assuming his conclusion. His so-called “Down-Under Disproof,” sounds like a DUD to me.
But tell us, what do you think of our world from your perspective, with all its evil? With no god, and all this evil rarely judged or addressed–what is the point? To what end do you do anything that you do? Why do you bother? To make a “better” world? Better by a merely relative standard of your own choosing? I’d like to understand how you stay motivated in life, when daily facing the fact of the existence of so much evil.
Bornagain77 @17,
Thank you for the description. It’s also an example of what I’d call arguing from extremes. My favorite example comes from the old saw, “Can God create a rock to heavy for Him to lift?” If He can’t, then God is not all powerful, right? But if He could, then He still isn’t all powerful because He can’t lift it.
It’s like claiming that mathematics doesn’t exist because one cannot divide by zero.
My answer to this foolish argument is to ask, “Can God be not God?”
There are indeed things that God cannot do. The scriptures tell us that God cannot lie, God cannot be unholy, and God cannot be unloving. The problem then isn’t with God, it’s with the extremes/superlatives that we try to reason with.
-Q
Lieutenant Commander Data @15,
Yes, why be a dog that can’t help but chase all the squirrels in a forest?
-Q
@ChuckDarwin @12.
‘‘The Origin of Speciesdoes not speak to either the origin of the cosmos (universe) or the origin of life (human or non-human).”
In fact, it doesn’t even speak to the origin of species.
“ Finally, I have no misconceptions about Epicurus’ deism. But that is not relevant to my post”
That’s right, and your post wasn’t relevant to the issue of Darwinism.
You were infuriated by Thomas dismissing Epicurus by comparing his efforts with the likes of Plato and Aristotle. Epicurus was not Thomas’ target.
Querius at 19:,,, “My favorite example comes from the old saw, “Can God create a rock to heavy for Him to lift?”,,, My answer to this foolish argument is to ask, “Can God be not God?”,
Good answer, Indeed, after listening to this following song the other day,,, a song where it asks and states, “since when has impossible Ever stopped You(?),, “Just ask the stone that was rolled At the tomb in the garden What happens when God says to move,”,,,
,,, after listening to that song the other day, a few thoughts occurred to me. Number one, God Himself is already the ‘infinite rock’ that can’t be moved,
Number two, God is the already the ‘necessary’ infinite rock upon which an infinitude of other ‘contingent’ things, and/or ‘rocks’, already depend for their movement. (i.e. the prime mover argument).
And number three, the only truly ‘infinite rock’ that I am really concerned with God moving is “the stone that was rolled at the tomb in the garden”,,,
,, The reason that is the only ‘infinite rock’ that I am truly concerned with God moving is since “the stone that was rolled at the tomb in the garden” represents precisely the ‘infinite rock’ between life and death that needed to be moved in order to bridge the infinite gap between finite, sinful, man and the infinitely holy, and just, living God.
Darwin’s “The Origins of Species” doesn’t even discuss the origins of species!
How life originated dictates how it subsequently evolved. It is only if life originated via blind and mindless processes would we infer evolution also proceeded via blind and mindless processes.
However an Intelligently Designed origins of life means that organisms were so designed with the information and ability to adapt and evolve. Why? Because an intelligent designer wouldn’t take the time to Intelligently Design a universe, solar system and planet just to leave everything else to chance.
Objective morality arises any time two or more people agree on the “rules of the road.” It is a human creation. We find objective standards of morality in every society, i.e. norms, rules, regulations, statutes, etc. to help us organize and police ourselves. For example at law, the objective standard for behavior (morality) is the “reasonable person” as determined by a jury acting as the conscience of the community. This creation of Anglo-American law was developed precisely to avoid subjectively arbitrary treatment and to create an objective means of judging those accused of violating “the rules of the road.”
Where Christian apologists err is in equating the notion of a divinely imposed absolute morality with “objective” morality. They are not the same thing and to suggest that without God objective morality is impossible is not just a huge misnomer, it is egregious sophistry.
I’m done–Ciao
CD: “Objective morality arises any time two or more people agree on the “rules of the road.” It is a human creation.”
^^^ So you hold that objective morality is decided simply by a majority of people being in agreement about it???
By your subjective standard of a ‘majority’ makes morality, i.e. ‘might makes right’, you are left completely unable to say anything about the Nazis slaughtering millions of Jews.
.
Chuck, just a couple of quick things…
1. I am certainly no expert on Lucretius, but I know he asked some penetrating questions at a time in history where mankind did not have the means to fully answer them. For instance, he asked (paraphrasing) if it is true that all atoms interact with one another in pure invariant physical determinism — never “swerving” to create a new path and new possibilities — then from what comes all the endless variation found in living things? For Lucretius, the most obvious example of endless variation was in the observation of free will, so he framed the question in those terms, but the question stands nonetheless. He was basically asking how this is all possible. And although his generation did not have the technical capacity to answer that question, modern man has answered it. It is made physically possible by control hierarchy (via non-holonomic constraints and symbols). But you ignore that answer, thereby stripping his question of all its value.
2. You cite Darwin himself, suggesting that Darwinian evolution is not (and never was) expected to provide any answers to the OoL. But that is simply not true in the real world. There is a big distinction between what materialist ideologues say when they are making speeches and defending their ideology, and what they say when they are speculating about the origin of life. Darwinian evolution occurs when changes are made to quiescent genetic memory, leading to differential success. Yet virtually all OoL researchers promote the idea that once a self-replicating RNA has appeared on earth, then minute changes to that RNA will naturally occur, setting off Darwinian evolution, and then poof there it is. This supposed pattern of events appears in virtually every paper and lecture on the subject I’ve ever seen, and it is the central materialist story fed to the public at every turn. Yet, there is no quiescent genetic memory in a self-replicating RNA. The (as yet unknown and unseen) self-replication RNA is a purely dynamic player — and thus, Darwinian evolution does not even exist in such a thing. As with so many other examples, Darwinian evolution is tossed on the table as an explanation to fill the gap (i.e. Darwin of the Gaps), even when its doesn’t actually exist.
Personally, I have faint interest in arguing over Darwinian evolution, but it can surely be pointed out that (when promoting and defending their origin myth) materialists like to talk about about RNA being able to serve both as a carrier of information, like mRNA, as well as having an enzymatic activity. They quickly ignore the fact that in order to “carry information” like mRNA, it requires a complete set of complementary molecules that are coordinated with one another. This is the fundamental requirement of both life and evolution. They then want to turn around and explain the rise of those molecules via Darwinian evolution, while simultaneously telling us that Darwinian evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. This is a fact they needn’t tell us; they instead need to remember it themselves.
.
… 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?
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.
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.
Translation. I cannot support most of what I say so don’t expect me to answer questions.
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,
,,, 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.
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.
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’.
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.
Bornagain77 @22,
Thank you–great segue into the most important stone that God moved!
-Q
Upright Biped @28,
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.
-Q
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?
EDTA/32
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?
Or the yet to come?
Zweston/29
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.
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 either
#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.
.
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.
#32 EDTA
#36 Seversky
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.
PS
Moral relativism is not the opposite of objective morality. It is the opposite of absolute morality …….
What happened?
Did you sense you could make additional comments and not have to respond?
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.
Chuckdarwin @40,
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?
-Q
The point, Querius, is that you blatantly misrepresented what I posted.
Duck and run at its best.
seversky:
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.
Jerry @47,
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.
-Q
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:
Regardless, there’s still a problem with Chuckdarwin’s evasions. He previously wrote
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.
-Q
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
-Queen Gertrude (Hamlet)
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 @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.
-Q
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, 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.,,,”
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.
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.”
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,
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.
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,,,
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.”
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-738586
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,,”
Of related note, the preceding studies satisfy Kant’s criteria for the moral argument for God to be considered valid.
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.