US AG Barr on the importance of religious liberty

_{kairosfocus

October 14, 2019

Academic Freedom, Atheism, Defending our Civilization, News Highlights, Religion}

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

Here (as updated):

Money clip:

The imperative of protecting religious freedom was not just a nod in the direction of piety. It reflects the framers’ belief that religion was indispensable to sustaining our free system of government . . . ”

Food for thought. END

F/N, U/D: Prepared text, found. I think he mostly read the speech, let us clip and discuss below.

PS: First, a different view on political spectra (than where one sat in the French legislature 200 years ago or thereabouts):

Next, Aquinas on law, as summarised:

Third, Schaeffer’s line of despair analysis, as adjusted and extended:

Let’s add on straight vs spin

Comments

Vivid
Curious, do you hold the view that there is a reality independent of any beliefs, perceptions, etc?
That is not incompatible with my views. I can’t perceive your thoughts but I am confident that they are real.Ed George_{November 9, 2019
November
11
Nov
9
09
2019
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

EG Curious, do you hold the view that there is a reality independent of any beliefs, perceptions, etc? Vividvividbleau_{November 9, 2019
November
11
Nov
9
09
2019
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT}

Hazel, it sounds like your early life was similar to mine. My parents felt it was important that we obtain knowledge about Christianity (or maybe it just gave the Sunday mornings to themselves :) ). And when I got married, it was in a church but the minister who performed the ceremony was openly gay and living with his male partner. And this was 37 years ago. The minister and his partner remained in a loving committed relationship until he died. It is largely because of him that I support SSM.Ed George_{November 9, 2019
November
11
Nov
9
09
2019
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT}

hazel:
I remember going to Sunday School as a kid and hearing all those Bible stories, and we had big book of Bible stories at home. I couldn’t buy it: they were all obviously myths just like the Greek, Roman, and Nordic myths that I enjoyed reading.
And yet they all make more sense than materialism.ET_{November 9, 2019
November
11
Nov
9
09
2019
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT}

Ed George:
That our moral values are established through early learning, indoctrination, repetition, feedback, reasoning and our ability to predict the consequences of our actions. In short, they are subjectively derived, not delivered to us fully fleshed our by some deity.
Pure ignorance. TODAY's morals as so subjectively derived. That in no way refutes nor even addresses the claim that objective morals exist.
Our traditional views about homosexuality were largely the result of people believing that what they read in the bible was objectively and morally true.
Or, that as reasoning people, we see it as unnatural, deviant and perverse.
If God has provided us with objective moral truths, he has done a terrible job telling us about them.
That is your willfully ignorant opinion, anyway. But alas, it is due to this thing called "free will", along with genetic entropy, in Ed's case.ET_{November 9, 2019
November
11
Nov
9
09
2019
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

I remember going to Sunday School as a kid and hearing all those Bible stories, and we had big book of Bible stories at home. I couldn't buy it: they were all obviously myths just like the Greek, Roman, and Nordic myths that I enjoyed reading. I was growing up in a Christian culture, but the stories were so obviously untrue ("fantasies and lies?") that even as an 8 year old I knew this wasn't for me. It my case, "indoctrination" failed.hazel_{November 9, 2019
November
11
Nov
9
09
2019
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT}

KF@684, you appear to be arguing about the dangers of teaching “non-traditional” views to children and how this can influence their worldview. Although you may not realize it, but your argument supports what I have been saying all along. That our moral values are established through early learning, indoctrination, repetition, feedback, reasoning and our ability to predict the consequences of our actions. In short, they are subjectively derived, not delivered to us fully fleshed our by some deity. Our traditional views about homosexuality were largely the result of people believing that what they read in the bible was objectively and morally true. But as homosexuals stopped hiding in the metaphorical closet and forced others to engage with them on an equal footing, the majority of those who believed that homosexuality was morally wrong (a sin) realized that their earlier beliefs had no basis in fact and were indefensible. The fact that our moral values can and do change is further proof that they are subjectively derived. Tap-dancing with numbered sentences and unproven self-evident truths does not change this. The number of “self-evident truths” and “moral truths” that have changed over time could fill a book. If God has provided us with objective moral truths, he has done a terrible job telling us about them.Ed George_{November 9, 2019
November
11
Nov
9
09
2019
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

That is true also. Literature can be put to the whole broad range of uses by which people wish to express themselves and influence others.hazel_{November 9, 2019
November
11
Nov
9
09
2019
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT}

Fiction and fantasy can be the vehicles for spreading lies and nonsense.ET_{November 9, 2019
November
11
Nov
9
09
2019
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT}

Fiction and fantasy can be the vehicles for expressing truths about human nature and the human condition: some notable examples might be some of Shakespeare, Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings", C.S Lewis, and the myths of the world's great religions, including, many would say, the stories of the Bible. Santayana called religion "sacred literature". I think it is an impoverished view that would reject literature as a potentially meaningful and powerful window into understanding humanity, and a source of inspiration as to how to live.hazel_{November 9, 2019
November
11
Nov
9
09
2019
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT}

If Hogfather is fiction and fantasy then what is its relevance?ET_{November 9, 2019
November
11
Nov
9
09
2019
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT}

First, Hogfather is not a fantasy designed for children: it's a fantasy designed for adults. Also the "little naive girl" is a woman and the heroine of the story, although I'll acknowledge again that one short clip to someone who isn't familiar with Pratchett can't really represent the bigger picture. And at least you watched the clip, so thanks for that.hazel_{November 9, 2019
November
11
Nov
9
09
2019
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT}

Hazel, you linked and suggested look there. I found there absurdities that simply fail to understand the logic of being and associated issues. Inasmuch as this seems to be fantasy designed for children, it raises questions C S Lewis had about what he termed Bulverism, by which children especially were manipulated into certain convenient positions by making especially a strawman caricature of traditional views seem to have little or no merit, while putting on a confident manner worldly wisdom pose to push an ideology. Often, under false colours of education and/or entertainment, typically with overtones of armchair psychoanalysing of the caricatured . . . message being, you only take that seriously if you are sick in the head or deluded; conveniently, without having to show the actual balance on the merits. The interaction between the grim reaper character and the little naive girl fits this like a hand in its glove. Nowhere, do we find a clear warning that the native language of the devil is lies. This pattern becomes especially powerful when the imagination of children is filled with such devices through message domination in the environment that then undermines ability to address the actual balance on the merits. Training in basic worldviews analysis is the first level antidote. KFkairosfocus_{November 9, 2019
November
11
Nov
9
09
2019
12:18 AM
12
12
18
AM
PDT}

Hogfather is fiction, and you'd have to both know and appreciate Pratchett's Discworld framework, the theme and plot of the book/movie, and the character of Death to understand the full context of the clip I linked to. I personally wouldn't call justice et al lies or fantasies.hazel_{November 8, 2019
November
11
Nov
8
08
2019
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT}

Hazel, 628. Do you really intend to endorse that justice, mercy, beauty, that sort of thing are the big lies and / or fantasies? Do you understand the logical and policy consequences? Further to this, there IS a big lie afoot, that belief is inevitably or presumably or highly likely irrational. Knowledge, in the weak sense we generally use is well warranted, credibly true (and so, reliable) belief. Similarly the Agrippa Trilemma beckons, we cannot complete an infinite stepwise chain of warrant, circularity is just as bad, forcing finitely remote first plausibles accepted without onward warrant. Alternatives, being held i/l/o comparative difficulties. This is ground reviewed many times but it seems the weight of the question has not been fully felt. Only when that is done will the value of the answers become clear enough. KFkairosfocus_{November 8, 2019
November
11
Nov
8
08
2019
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT}

I’ve been engaged in discussions on the internet (at UD and other sites) for over 13 years. During that time I have crossed paths with many people who very proudly describe themselves as atheists. (Though it’s never been my primary purpose to engage or debate atheists.) Occasionally when the debate gets heated an atheist will accuse me or other Christians as “not being very Christian.” But why would an atheist see Christian morality and ethics as being viable moral and ethical standard if he doesn’t think Christian Theism is true? And why when it comes to ethical standards am I never tempted to tell an atheist “that’s not very atheistic of you?” Of course, I agree that Christians have a basis for a moral standard and atheists don’t. Is that what atheists are unconsciously or tacitly conceding? I seems like it to me.john_a_designer_{November 8, 2019
November
11
Nov
8
08
2019
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT}

Moreover, when we rightly allow the Agent Causality of God ‘back’ into modern physics, as Sir Isaac Newton himself originally envisioned, and as Godel’s incompleteness theorem itself also demands that we do, (not to mention the closing of the ‘free will loophole’ in quantum mechanics by Anton Zeilinger and company), when we rightly allow the Agent Causality of God ‘back’ into modern physics then a empirically backed reconciliation, (via the Shroud of Turin), between general relativity and quantum mechanics into the quote-unquote ‘theory of everything’, readily pops out for us in Christ’s resurrection from the dead. Here are a few posts where I lay out and defend some of the evidence for that claim:
Overturning of the Copernican Principle by both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/we-are-invited-to-consider-a-simpler-perspective-on-the-laws-of-physics/#comment-680427 (February 19, 2019) To support Isabel Piczek’s claim that the Shroud of Turin does indeed reveal a true ‘event horizon’, the following study states that ‘The bottom part of the cloth (containing the dorsal image) would have born all the weight of the man’s supine body, yet the dorsal image is not encoded with a greater amount of intensity than the frontal image.’,,, Moreover, besides gravity being dealt with, the shroud also gives us evidence that Quantum Mechanics was dealt with. In the following paper, it was found that it was not possible to describe the image formation on the Shroud in classical terms but they found it necessary to describe the formation of the image on the Shroud in discrete quantum terms. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/experiment-quantum-particles-can-violate-the-mathematical-pigeonhole-principle/#comment-673178 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/experiment-quantum-particles-can-violate-the-mathematical-pigeonhole-principle/#comment-673179
Thus, when we follow the evidence where it leads, then we find that only Theism can account for the ‘miracle’ of the applicability of mathematics to our universe in the first place, and then we also find that only Christianity, and Christianity alone, out of all the Theistic worldviews, provides an empirically backed ‘unification’, (via the Shroud of Turin), between quantum theory and general relativity into the much sought after ‘theory of everything’. And that necessarily entails that Christianity, and Christianity alone, also provides the correct basis for the transcendent, eternal, and universal moral standard(s) that we all intuitively know, (like mathematics), to exist and to be true.
Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Philippians 2:10-11 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
bornagain77_{November 8, 2019
November
11
Nov
8
08
2019
05:02 AM
5
05
02
AM
PDT}

The reason why the applicability of mathematics to the universe is to be considered, by all rights, a ‘miracle’ is that mathematics itself, which provides the backbone for all of science, engineering and technology in the first place, mathematics itself exists in a transcendent, beyond space and time realm, a realm which is not reducible any possible material explanation. This transcendent mathematical realm has been referred to as a Platonic mathematical world.
Platonic mathematical world - image http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/platonic_physical.gif
As David Berlinski states in the following article, “There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time…. The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and it is not going to go out of existence at another time. It is neither here nor there. Nonetheless we are in some sense able to grasp the number by a faculty of our minds. Mathematical intuition is utterly mysterious. So for that matter is the fact that mathematical objects such as a Lie Group or a differentiable manifold have the power to interact with elementary particles or accelerating forces. But these are precisely the claims that theologians have always made as well – that human beings are capable by an exercise of their devotional abilities to come to some understanding of the deity; and the deity, although beyond space and time, is capable of interacting with material objects.”
An Interview with David Berlinski – Jonathan Witt Berlinski: There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time…. Interviewer:… Come again(?) … Berlinski: No need to come again: I got to where I was going the first time. The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and it is not going to go out of existence at another time. It is neither here nor there. Nonetheless we are in some sense able to grasp the number by a faculty of our minds. Mathematical intuition is utterly mysterious. So for that matter is the fact that mathematical objects such as a Lie Group or a differentiable manifold have the power to interact with elementary particles or accelerating forces. But these are precisely the claims that theologians have always made as well – that human beings are capable by an exercise of their devotional abilities to come to some understanding of the deity; and the deity, although beyond space and time, is capable of interacting with material objects. http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/found-upon-web-and-reprinted-here.html
And as M. Anthony Mills states, “In fact, more problematic for the materialist than the non-existence of persons is the existence of mathematics. Why? Although a committed materialist might be perfectly willing to accept that you do not really exist, he will have a harder time accepting that numbers do not exist. The trouble is that numbers — along with other mathematical entities such as classes, sets, and functions — are indispensable for modern science. And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities.”
What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? – M. Anthony Mills – April 16, 2018 Excerpt: In fact, more problematic for the materialist than the non-existence of persons is the existence of mathematics. Why? Although a committed materialist might be perfectly willing to accept that you do not really exist, he will have a harder time accepting that numbers do not exist. The trouble is that numbers — along with other mathematical entities such as classes, sets, and functions — are indispensable for modern science. And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities. https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html
Simply put, Mathematics itself, contrary to the materialistic presuppositions of Darwinists, does not need the physical world in order to exist. And yet Darwinists, although they deny that anything beyond nature exists, need this transcendent, i.e. beyond space and time, world of mathematics in order for their theory to be considered scientific in the first place. The predicament that Darwinists find themselves in regards to denying the objective reality of this transcendent, immaterial, world of mathematics, and yet needing validation from this transcendent, immaterial, world of mathematics in order for their theory to even be considered scientific in the first place, should be the very definition of a scientifically self-refuting worldview. Moreover, as should be obvious by now, the fact that man himself can use this transcendent, beyond space and time, world of mathematics to study the universe, (as well as for his own personal benefit in engineering houses, tools, and such as that), offers proof that man must also have a transcendent, beyond space and time, soul. As Charles Darwin’s contemporary, Alfred Russel Wallace himself stated, “Nothing in evolution can account for the soul of man. The difference between man and the other animals is unbridgeable. Mathematics is alone sufficient to prove in man the possession of a faculty unexistent in other creatures. Then you have music and the artistic faculty. No, the soul was a separate creation.”
“Nothing in evolution can account for the soul of man. The difference between man and the other animals is unbridgeable. Mathematics is alone sufficient to prove in man the possession of a faculty unexistent in other creatures. Then you have music and the artistic faculty. No, the soul was a separate creation.” Alfred Russel Wallace – 1910 https://evolutionnews.org/2010/08/alfred_russel_wallace_co-disco/
Again, Atheistic Materialists simply have no clue why we should be able to comprehend this transcendent, eternal, immaterial, and eternal realm of mathematics, much less do they have a clue why mathematics should be applicable to the universe. Whereas Christian presuppose that it should be this way,
“Geometry is unique and eternal, a reflection from the mind of God. That mankind shares in it is because man is an image of God.” – Johannes Kepler
Anyone who has had the patience to read through the entirety of my argument thus far might well be wondering. “how in blue blazes does all of this tie into your claim that objective morality must be based in Christian Theism and Christian Theism alone?” Well, thanks for asking. The number one goal in theoretical physics today is to unify general relativity and quantum mechanics into a quote-unquote ‘theory of everything’
Theory of everything Excerpt: A theory of everything (ToE), final theory, ultimate theory, or master theory is a hypothetical single, all-encompassing, coherent theoretical framework of physics that fully explains and links together all physical aspects of the universe.[1]:6 Finding a ToE is one of the major unsolved problems in physics. Over the past few centuries, two theoretical frameworks have been developed that, as a whole, most closely resemble a ToE. These two theories upon which all modern physics rests are general relativity (GR) and quantum field theory (QFT).,,, Through years of research, physicists have experimentally confirmed with tremendous accuracy virtually every prediction made by these two theories when in their appropriate domains of applicability. In accordance with their findings, scientists also learned that GR and QFT, as they are currently formulated, are mutually incompatible – they cannot both be right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything
Yet Godel proved, via his incompleteness theorem, that there will never be a purely mathematical ‘theory of everything’
“Gödel’s incompleteness theorem (1931), proves that there are limits to what can be ascertained by mathematics. Kurt Gödel halted the achievement of a unifying all-encompassing theory of everything in his theorem that: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove.” - Stephen Hawking & Leonard Miodinow, The Grand Design (2010) Gödel and Physics – John D. Barrow Excerpt (page 5-6): “Clearly then no scientific cosmology, which of necessity must be highly mathematical, can have its proof of consistency within itself as far as mathematics go. In absence of such consistency, all mathematical models, all theories of elementary particles, including the theory of quarks and gluons…fall inherently short of being that theory which shows in virtue of its a priori truth that the world can only be what it is and nothing else. This is true even if the theory happened to account for perfect accuracy for all phenomena of the physical world known at a particular time.” Stanley Jaki – Cosmos and Creator – 1980, pg. 49 http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0612253.pdf
In fact, a Harvard mathematician and theologian has, via Godel, proven that, because they reject God as the basis of mathematics, atheists are condemned “to oscillate,,, between the poles of a priori knowledge and a posteriori knowledge”, and that atheists, (again because they have rejected God), can not even ‘know’ for certain that 2 + 2 = 4 is true.
A BIBLICAL VIEW OF MATHEMATICS Vern Poythress - Doctorate in theology, PhD in Mathematics (Harvard) 15. Implications of Gödel’s proof B. Metaphysical problems of anti-theistic mathematics: unity and plurality Excerpt: Because of the above difficulties, anti-theistic philosophy of mathematics is condemned to oscillate, much as we have done in our argument, between the poles of a priori knowledge and a posteriori knowledge. Why? It will not acknowledge the true God, wise Creator of both the human mind with its mathematical intuition and the external world with its mathematical properties. In sections 22-23 we shall see how the Biblical view furnishes us with a real solution to the problem of “knowing” that 2 + 2 = 4 and knowing that S is true. http://www.frame-poythress.org/a-biblical-view-of-mathematics/
Thus, although atheistic theoretical physicists may think that, via mathematics, they can derive a purely mathematical theory of everything that reveals the ultimate truth about reality, the fact of the matter is that they cannot, within their atheistic worldview, even account for their a-priori belief that this transcendent world of mathematics must be true. Whereas, on the other hand, Christians can readily account for the truthfulness of mathematics itself:
Taking God Out of the Equation - Biblical Worldview - by Ron Tagliapietra - January 1, 2012 Excerpt: Kurt Gödel (1906–1978) proved that no logical systems (if they include the counting numbers) can have all three of the following properties. 1. Validity ... all conclusions are reached by valid reasoning. 2. Consistency ... no conclusions contradict any other conclusions. 3. Completeness ... all statements made in the system are either true or false. The details filled a book, but the basic concept was simple and elegant. He (Godel) summed it up this way: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove.” For this reason, his proof is also called the Incompleteness Theorem. Kurt Gödel had dropped a bomb on the foundations of mathematics. Math could not play the role of God as infinite and autonomous. It was shocking, though, that logic could prove that mathematics could not be its own ultimate foundation. Christians should not have been surprised. The first two conditions are true about math: it is valid and consistent. But only God fulfills the third condition. Only He is complete and therefore self-dependent (autonomous). God alone is “all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28), “the beginning and the end” (Revelation 22:13). God is the ultimate authority (Hebrews 6:13), and in Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:3). http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v7/n1/equation#
bornagain77_{November 8, 2019
November
11
Nov
8
08
2019
05:02 AM
5
05
02
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H has stated this a couple of times now,
JAD – That Christian theism is the only possible basis for universal human rights. Rather the argument is that the standard needs to be an eternally existing transcendent one Bob - Why? I don’t see the necessity for the standard to be eternal and transcendent.
Bob then claims that moral standards are 'the standard of people.' i.e. Apparently Bob, due to his atheistic materialism, wants to believe that people make up their own illusory moral standards as they go along. Yet even Bob knows, though he may not explicitly and publicly admit it, that the moral standards of the Nazis were morally evil. As the following article states, "nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense."
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
i.e. The Nazis certainly did not obey the transcendent, eternal, and universal moral standard of the golden rule. i.e. to ‘love your neighbor as you love yourself’.
Matthew 22:36-40 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
Quite to the contrary, the Nazis, (following Darwinian ideology I might add), sought to eradicate anyone they deemed to be racially inferior to themselves.
From Darwin to Hitler - Richard Weikart https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Anq6SAo1ue4
So it is self evidently true that moral standards must necessarily transcend a population of people. i.e. Morality must necessarily be transcendent, eternal, and universal. I don't think even Bob would try to argue that the Nazi's, (or the Communists, or the Islamists), were only evil in a relative, provisional sense.
A Dehumanizing Ideology Unsurprisingly Catalyzes Violence - Michael Egnor - August 7, 2016 Excerpt: And it is precisely the metaphysical commitments Coyne has championed that have catalyzed atheist violence -- the denial of an objective moral law, the denial of eternal accountability for transgressions, the reduction of human beings to animals or even to meat robots, deprived of free will or of any claim to human exceptionalism. These are all tenets of atheist belief, and Coyne himself is one of the loudest salesman for the dehumanizing ideology inherent to atheism. Just how violent and repressive can atheism be?,,, In the past century, a number of nations have been governed by explicitly atheist governments. Atheist governments murdered more than 100 million people during the 20th century.,,, Looking at modern history, we see: Christian culture creates reasonable and tolerant democracies. Islamic regimes create repressive theocracies. Atheist regimes create totalitarian hellholes. The denial of free will and the other anti-human inferences inherent to atheism are not merely theoretical affronts to humanity. The fact is that atheism is the most violent ideology in the 20th century, and given its short run and unprecedented rate of state-sanctioned murder, it is also the most violent and repressive ideology in human history. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/08/a_dehumanizing103055.html Muslims exceed atheists in deaths by murder - Tears of Jihad - Mar 3 2008 | by Bill Warner Excerpt:,,,120 million Africans,,, ,,,60 million Christians,,, ,,,80 million Hindus,,, ,,,10 million Buddhists,,, This gives a rough estimate of 270 million killed by jihad (since Islam was founded). https://www.politicalislam.com/tears-of-jihad/
I will now take a fairly different path in addressing the moral argument for God, I will argue, from mathematics, or more specifically from the applicability of mathematics to the universe, that transcendent, eternal, and universal moral standards find their foundational basis in Christian Theism and in Christian Theism alone.. As J. Budziszewski stated, “Yet our common moral knowledge is as real as arithmetic, and probably just as plain. Paradoxically, maddeningly, we appeal to it even to justify wrongdoing; rationalization is the homage paid by sin to guilty knowledge.”
“Yet our common moral knowledge is as real as arithmetic, and probably just as plain. Paradoxically, maddeningly, we appeal to it even to justify wrongdoing; rationalization is the homage paid by sin to guilty knowledge.” - J. Budziszewski, What We Can't Not Know: A Guide
The first ‘unification’ in science, indeed the unification that led to the founding of modern science itself, was when Sir Isaac Newton realized that "the same force that caused an apple to fall at the Earth's surface—gravity—was also responsible for holding the Moon in orbit about the Earth",,
Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation Excerpt: The first major unification in physics was Sir Isaac Newton's realization that the same force that caused an apple to fall at the Earth's surface—gravity—was also responsible for holding the Moon in orbit about the Earth. This universal force would also act between the planets and the Sun, providing a common explanation for both terrestrial and astronomical phenomena. https://www.learner.org/courses/physics/unit/text.html?unit=3&secNum=3
In regards to this first unification, Sir Isaac Newton stated: “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One;,,,”
“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems: and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he hath placed those systems at immense distances one from another. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God pantokrator, or Universal Ruler;,,, The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect;,,, from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity or infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures for ever, and is every where present”: - Sir Isaac Newton - Quoted from what many consider the greatest science masterpiece of all time, his book "Principia" http://gravitee.tripod.com/genschol.htm
And as C.S. Lewis noted, Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver."
The God Particle: Not the God of the Gaps, But the Whole Show - Monday, Aug. 2012 Excerpt: C. S. Lewis put it this way: "Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver." http://www.christianpost.com/news/the-god-particle-not-the-god-of-the-gaps-but-the-whole-show-80307/
Atheistic materialists simply have no clue why there should be universal mathematical laws,
“There cannot be, in principle, a naturalistic bottom-up explanation for immutable physical laws — which are themselves an ‘expression’ of top-down causation. A bottom-up explanation, from the level of e.g. bosons, should be expected to give rise to innumerable different ever-changing laws. By analogy, particles give rise to innumerable different conglomerations. Moreover a bottom-up process from bosons to physical laws is in need of constraints (laws) in order to produce a limited set of universal laws. Paul Davies: “Physical processes, however violent or complex, are thought to have absolutely no effect on the laws. There is thus a curious asymmetry: physical processes depend on laws but the laws do not depend on physical processes. Although this statement cannot be proved, it is widely accepted.” Saying that laws do not depend on physical processes, is another way of saying that laws cannot be explained by physical processes.” – Origenes
Moreover, besides having no clue why there should even be universal laws, atheists also have no coherent reason for presupposing that mathematics, in and of itself, should be applicable to the universe in the first place. In fact, the applicability of mathematics to the universe is, by all rights, itself to be considered a miracle. Both Einstein and Wigner are on record as to regarding the applicability of mathematics to the universe as a miracle: As Einstein himself stated, “You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world 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,,,” and further stated that, “There lies the weakness of positivists and professional atheists,,,”
On the Rational Order of the World: a Letter to Maurice Solovine – Albert Einstein – March 30, 1952 Excerpt: “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 .. the kind of order created by Newton’s theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if a man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the ‘miracle’ which is constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands. There lies the weakness of positivists and professional atheists who are elated because they feel that they have not only successfully rid the world of gods but “bared the miracles.” -Albert Einstein http://inters.org/Einstein-Letter-Solovine
Ditto for Wigner
The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960 Excerpt: ,,certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin’s process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,, 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.,,, The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning. http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html
bornagain77_{November 8, 2019
November
11
Nov
8
08
2019
05:01 AM
5
05
01
AM
PDT}

Allow me to help Ed. The following is the FULL content of one recent post that Ed ignored because Ed is willfully ignorant: Despite what some morons may say, Intelligent Design is scientific. Intelligent Design is scientific for the simple reasons that it makes testable claims and can potentially be falsified. That is the hallmark of a scientific endeavor science works with testable ideas:
Only testable ideas are within the purview of science. For an idea to be testable, it must logically generate specific expectations — in other words, a set of observations that we could expect to make if the idea were true and a set of observations that would be inconsistent with the idea and lead you to believe that it is not true.
ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92):
1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.

2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.

3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.

4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.
And guess what? That is more than evolution by means of blind, mindless and purposeless processes can muster Those show the expectations and also what would falsify the concept. The criteria for inferring design in biology is, as Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University, puts it in his book Darwin ' s Black Box:
"Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”
If we observe that and don't have any idea how blind and mindless processes could have done it, we are safe to infer it was accomplished by means of Intelligent Design.ET_{November 8, 2019
November
11
Nov
8
08
2019
03:27 AM
3
03
27
AM
PDT}

Ed George, cowardly liar:
Fair enough. Let’s examine some of that CONTENT.
And then Ed doesn't post any CONTENT to examine. It's as if Ed is proud to be a biased loser and quote-mining punk. THAT is what UD deals with when it comes to any and all opposition- liars, equivocators, bluffers an quote-mining losers. And "Ed George" exemplifies all of those punk traits.ET_{November 8, 2019
November
11
Nov
8
08
2019
03:21 AM
3
03
21
AM
PDT}

BO'H: and so the corrupt standard of a deceived nation then becomes the crooked yardstick they cling to in rejecting what is genuinely straight, accurate, upright -- as, such do not conform to their accustomed crookedness. You would be well advised to think again. KFkairosfocus_{November 8, 2019
November
11
Nov
8
08
2019
01:23 AM
1
01
23
AM
PDT}

Me at 611 -
JAD –
That Christian theism is the only possible basis for universal human rights. Rather the argument is that the standard needs to be an eternally existing transcendent one
Why? I don’t see the necessity for the standard to be eternal and transcendent.
JAD at 612 -
Whose standard then is the basis for interpersonal moral obligation?
I think the clue's in the question. :-) It's the standard of people. It looks like you have indirectly answered the question I asked in 598 ("moral obligation to who (or what)?"), and have landed on the answer ET gave, i.e. moral obligation is to other people. This surprises me rather, so I suspect I'm mis-interpreting your opinions.Bob O'H_{November 8, 2019
November
11
Nov
8
08
2019
01:20 AM
1
01
20
AM
PDT}

F/N: Back to the core of the matter, I freely re-state what the objectors have not been able to properly overturn after 600+ comments (having first tried to studiously ignore then tried to imply that repeated highlighting of what comes first in order to draw attention to it is somehow objectionable . . . even though evidently they deny the binding objective nature of ought):
, it is not only possible to
(a) be in demonstrable moral error, but also (b) there is hope that such moral errors can be corrected by appealing to manifestly sound core principles of the natural moral law. Thus, (c) we can now see that a core of law is built into moral government of our responsible, rational freedom (through our known, inescapable duties to truth, right reason, prudence [including, warrant], sound conscience, neighbourliness [thus, the golden rule], fairness & justice, etc). On these, (d) we may frame just civil law as comporting with that built-in law of our morally governed nature, towards upholding and defending the civil peace of justice through sound government.
For instance: 1] The first self evident moral truth is that we are inescapably under the government of ought.
(This is manifest in even an objector's implication in the questions, challenges and arguments that s/he would advance, that we are in the wrong and there is something to be avoided about that. That is, even the objector inadvertently implies that we OUGHT to do, think, aim for and say the right. Not even the hyperskeptical objector can escape this truth. Patent absurdity on attempted denial. Expanding slightly: our rational, responsible intelligent behaviour is inescapably under the moral government of known duties to truth, to right reason, to prudence [so to warrant], to sound conscience, to neighbourliness [thus, the Golden Rule], to fairness and justice, etc. Thus, we find morally rooted law built into our morally governed nature, even for our intellectual life. Thus, too, the civil law extends what is already built in, to our social circumstances, turning on issues of prudence, justice and mutual duties; if it is to be legitimate. Notice, this is itself a theory on what law is or at least should be. And yes, all of this is fraught with implications for the roots of reality.)
2] Second self evident truth, we discern that some things are right and others are wrong by a compass-sense we term conscience which guides our thought. (Again, objectors depend on a sense of guilt/ urgency to be right not wrong on our part to give their points persuasive force. See what would be undermined should conscience be deadened or dismissed universally? Sawing off the branch on which we all must sit.) 3] Third, were this sense of conscience and linked sense that we can make responsibly free, rational decisions to be a delusion, we would at once descend into a status of grand delusion in which there is no good ground for confidence in our self-understanding. That is, we look at an infinite regress of Plato’s cave worlds: once such a principle of grand global delusion is injected, there is no firewall so the perception of level one delusion is subject to the same issue, and this level two perception too, ad infinitum; landing in patent absurdity. 4] Fourth, we are objectively under obligation of OUGHT. That is, despite any particular person’s (or group’s or august council’s or majority’s) wishes or claims to the contrary, such obligation credibly holds to moral certainty. That is, it would be irresponsible, foolish and unwise for us to act and try to live otherwise. 5] Fifth, this cumulative framework of moral government under OUGHT is the basis for the manifest core principles of the natural moral law under which we find ourselves obligated to the right the good, the true etc. Where also, patently, we struggle to live up to what we acknowledge or imply we ought to do. 6] Sixth, this means we live in a world in which being under core, generally understood principles of natural moral law is coherent and factually adequate, thus calling for a world-understanding in which OUGHT is properly grounded at root level. (Thus worldviews that can soundly meet this test are the only truly viable ones. if a worldview does not have in it a world-root level IS that can simultaneously ground OUGHT, it fails decisively.*) 7] Seventh, in light of the above, even the weakest and most voiceless of us thus has a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of fulfillment of one’s sense of what s/he ought to be (“happiness”). This includes the young child, the unborn and more. (We see here the concept that rights are binding moral expectations of others to provide respect in regards to us because of our inherent status as human beings, members of the community of valuable neighbours. Where also who is my neighbour was forever answered by the parable of the Good Samaritan. Likewise, there can be no right to demand of or compel my neighbour that s/he upholds me and enables me in the wrong — including under false colour of law through lawfare. To justly claim a right, one must first be in the right.) 8] Eighth, like unto the seventh, such may only be circumscribed or limited for good cause. Such as, reciprocal obligation to cherish and not harm neighbour of equal, equally valuable nature in community and in the wider world of the common brotherhood of humanity. 9] Ninth, this is the context in which it becomes self evidently wrong, wicked and evil to kidnap, sexually torture and murder a young child or the like as concrete cases in point that show that might and/or manipulation do not make ‘right,’ ‘truth,’ ‘worth,’ ‘justice,’ ‘fairness,’ ‘law’ etc. That is, anything that expresses or implies the nihilist’s credo is morally absurd. 10] Tenth, this entails that in civil society with government, justice is a principal task of legitimate government. In short, nihilistic will to power untempered by the primacy of justice is its own refutation in any type of state. Where, justice is the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities. Thus also, 11] Eleventh, that government is and ought to be subject to audit, reformation and if necessary replacement should it fail sufficiently badly and incorrigibly.
(NB: This is a requisite of accountability for justice, and the suggestion or implication of some views across time, that government can reasonably be unaccountable to the governed, is its own refutation, reflecting -- again -- nihilistic will to power; which is automatically absurd. This truth involves the issue that finite, fallible, morally struggling men acting as civil authorities in the face of changing times and situations as well as in the face of the tendency of power to corrupt, need to be open to remonstrance and reformation -- or if they become resistant to reasonable appeal, there must be effective means of replacement. Hence, the principle that the general election is an insitutionalised regular solemn assembly of the people for audit and reform or if needs be replacement of government gone bad. But this is by no means an endorsement of the notion that a manipulated mob bent on a march of folly has a right to do as it pleases.)
12] Twelfth, the attempt to deny or dismiss such a general framework of moral governance invariably lands in shipwreck of incoherence and absurdity. As, has been seen in outline. But that does not mean that the attempt is not going to be made, so there is a mutual obligation of frank and fair correction and restraint of evil. _________________ * F/N: After centuries of debates and assessment of alternatives per comparative difficulties, there is in fact just one serious candidate to be such a grounding IS: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable responsible service of doing the good in accord with our manifestly evident nature. (And instantly, such generic ethical theism answers also to the accusation oh this is “religion”; that term being used as a dirty word — no, this is philosophy. If you doubt this, simply put forth a different candidate that meets the required criteria and passes the comparative difficulties test: _________ . Likewise, an inherently good, maximally great being will not be arbitrary or deceitful etc, that is why such is fully worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good in accord with our manifestly evident nature. As a serious candidate necessary being, such would be eternal and embedded in the frame for a world to exist at all. Thus such a candidate is either impossible as a square circle is impossible due to mutual ruin of core characteristics, or else it is actual. For simple instance no world is possible without two-ness in it, a necessary basis for distinct identity inter alia. F/N2: Likewise, as Ben Mines summarises from Leibniz, maximal goodness, wisdom and power are arguably mutually, inextricably entangled once we understand/accept that the good implies an evident proper end or purpose:
Leibniz has given an argument to show that omniscience and moral perfection [–> also, omnipotence] are mutually inclusive: all freely willed action strives towards some goal; all goals are the pursuit of some good entertained by the agent; [ –> real or imagined?] the scope and quality of entertainable goods is dependent on knowledge; the maximisation of knowledge perfects an agent’s judgment of the good. An evil being therefore lacks perfect knowledge; and lacking perfect knowledge, is not omniscient; and lacking omniscience, cannot be omnipotent since there will be some actions it lacks the knowledge to perform. The proposition, It is possible that a maximally great but evil being exists is therefore broadly incoherent. A being cannot be both evil and maximally great.
F/N3: This principle of built-in moral government under known law also applies directly to gospel ethics, discipleship and evangelism. For, example, it means that "sin" is not merely an oppressive invention of priestcraft designed to bring us under theocratic tyranny -- which, is the exact implication of many objections to gospel ethics today. Instead, sin is in the first instance willful moral error, defiance therefore of the inherently good and utterly wise Creator who made us, gave us responsible freedom, commanded us to live by love and truth, and gave us sound conscience as a witness. Therefore, too, we have real guilt against the law of our nature, the law of our creator, not just mere painful emotions to deal with. It is in this context that the gospel is good news: in his love, our creator has made a way for us to be forgiven, rescued and transformed. _________________ It is clear that there is no cogent relativist response to the objectivity or the grounding of moral governance. Indeed, it looks a lot like animosity motivates attempts to undermine what they do not like, while trying to manipulate then through lawfare to usurp the sword of justice and impose will to power.
That is what is at stake and it is what our civilisation is trifling with at grave, heedless peril. KFkairosfocus_{November 7, 2019
November
11
Nov
7
07
2019
11:33 PM
11
11
33
PM
PDT}

ADMIN NOTE: Much of the above is on yet another irrelevant tangent. Ironically, the objections pivot on the primacy of first principles and duties of reason. I gavel the tangent but duly note the point that is manifest but which objectors still refuse to acknowledge. What this shows is that there is an ideological lock-in because of the consequences for their preferred worldviews and cultural agendas for conceding that there are such inescapably true and self-evident first principles. Going forward, I will freely use said first principles and duties, knowing from this thread just how resistant to manifest truth ideologically motivated objectors unfortunately often are. KFkairosfocus_{November 7, 2019
November
11
Nov
7
07
2019
11:26 PM
11
11
26
PM
PDT}

Seversky @ 616, why is lying objectionable save in that it parasites on and undermines duties to truth, right reason etc? Cannot it be readily seen that what is parasitical and damaging cannot be foundational or dismissive thereof? Indeed, we see here that were lying to become the sufficiently common pattern, rational, responsible communication would collapse and society with it. Nihilism and misanthropy in short. KFkairosfocus_{November 7, 2019
November
11
Nov
7
07
2019
11:15 PM
11
11
15
PM
PDT}

EF, 615:
KF and others are making an argument based on premises that are not demonstrably true.
Self-evident first truths are antecedents of demonstration. Demonstration (and its power to compel assent) rest on these, not the other way around. You clearly fail to see the force of Epictetus' interaction with an interlocutor. Now, such has been repeatedly drawn to your attention and the first principles and first duties of right reason have been shown to be inescapably so on pain of collapse of responsible, rational freedom. An immediately obvious absurdity. Where -- as pointed out from the outset and inadvertently manifested in every objection including yours at 615 -- even one who objects cannot escape the force of these first principles. Just, you seem to be utterly unwilling to acknowledge what is manifest. KFkairosfocus_{November 7, 2019
November
11
Nov
7
07
2019
11:11 PM
11
11
11
PM
PDT}

BO'H @ 611, Are the first principles of logic necessarily true in all possible worlds? Are there concrete, physically observable principles or are they abstracta? Similarly, Mathematics can be seen as a study that faces the logic of structure and quantity which is in part a framework component for any possible world, e.g. numbers. So, is the core of such mathematics effectively a game we agree to play and could remake as we please? Or, again, is reasoning (including Mathematics) little more than a game we play? In that context, I cannot but observe that yet again, you implicitly rely on the first duties of reason to lend your argument persuasive power. If I have no truly inescapable duties to truth, right reason, prudence, sound conscience, fairness, justice etc, why should I not nihilistically determine what I respond to simply on grounds of balance of power and my aim to gain more power? Do you see the implications? And, you seem to duck the challenge given. KFkairosfocus_{November 7, 2019
November
11
Nov
7
07
2019
11:04 PM
11
11
04
PM
PDT}

I’m humming Kum Bai Ya as I type. Vividvividbleau_{November 7, 2019
November
11
Nov
7
07
2019
09:01 PM
9
09
01
PM
PDT}

Group hug?Ed George_{November 7, 2019
November
11
Nov
7
07
2019
08:58 PM
8
08
58
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 25 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply