A few more thoughts on the subject of nature. [I'll be referring to a lecture by R. C. Sproul on science]
- The typical approach evangelicals take to science is to make a distinction between nature and grace. (This way of looking at things was brought to prominence by Thomas Aquinas.) God has two books they like to say; the book of nature and the book of revelation. In some unfortunate versions of this you hear about learning how to get to heaven from scripture and how the heavens go by studying nature. (This statement fails the cuteness test; i.e. statements that are this cute aren't likely to have much meaningful content.) The summary they give people is that all truth is one; and so theology and science cannot be in conflict. [1.]
- The trouble with this distinction is that in our day, nature has come to mean uncreated matter; and so the distinction between nature and grace has come to stand for the antithesis between Materialism and Theism. (The real distinction is between general revelation and special revelation; between God's created world and God's word.)
- The idea is that all truth is one; i.e. that 'natural' truth and biblical truth are at heart one. I would agree; but there's two huge problems. How do you know this? This is not a 'natural' truth; one that comes from studying nature. It's a deduction from scripture, but people say it like it was obvious. In fact naturalists love this statement, and embrace it; which in their case makes no sense. Evangelicals never say how they know this principle is true. Is there some experiment that proves it? Are the truths of Islam and science one? Are the truths of Hinduism and science one?
- The second problem is this; how do you know what the scientist says is true? Because he tells you it is? Apparently the consensus of the moment is supposed to constitute truth. This leads us to adopt a position where we'll always be wrong. (One way to avoid this conundrum is to deny that science gives us truth. I think we'd be better off if scientists would restrict themselves to talking in terms of hypotheses and theories.) The history books are full of cases where the scientific establishment got things wrong.
- R. C. Sproul says the bible is the highest source of truth; but how does he know this? Is this a conclusion reached by science? The atheist doesn't accept this idea. This is supposed to be a 'neutral' methodology but over and over it relies on scripture for its authority.
- Sproul says it's possible for 'science' to correct theology. [but not the word of God he hastens to add] Okay; is it possible then for theology to correct science? You hear the first, but rarely hear of the second. This in itself speaks volumes. If only the first is possible, Christianity is on the road to oblivion. (i.e. since most or all of her doctrines are denied by materialist science) [2.] Over the last couple centuries, I cannot recall an instance of 'theology' correcting 'science'. (This seems to be because our Christian leaders don't really believe all truth is one at all; but instead believe naturalism is the only way to truth, that theological truths exist only in the realm of feeling and imagination.
- There have been a few theologians and Christian thinkers that have tried to correct scientists; but so far the church (as a whole) has hung these people out to dry, and either ignored them or censured them. (e.g. deny them teaching posts, or publish their works.)
Notes;
1. e.g. a lecture on science by R. C. Sproul/The Christian worldview
2. The number of doctrines and truths of Christianity that materialist deny is a long one, and includes; God, creation, the image of God, the soul, sin, the Fall, the Flood, prophecy, special revelation, miracles, the Atonement, the Incarnation, life after death, heaven, hell, the final judgement, moral absolutes, etc. If 'science' is always right, and is the final arbiter of truth, all of these doctrinal truths will have to be given up.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Nature is the art of God
In this post I want to take another look at the idea of nature.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'The evolution wars often revolve around the word “nature.” Evolutionists insist that science must use natural instead of supernatural explanations. It seems obvious that before arguing such issues, one must first define nature. That is not easily done, wrote a scientist at the University of Bergen in a letter to Nature.' [1.]
2. "Your editorial notes that many people define ‘nature’ as a place without people, and that this would suggest that nature is best protected by keeping humans far away. You question the value of this negative definition, arguing that “if nature is defined as a landscape uninfluenced by humankind, then there is no nature on the planet at all”.
This may be true. However, if we define nature as including humankind, the concept becomes so all-encompassing as to be practically useless.' [2.]
- That materialists can't define 'nature' is evidence that not only their ideas about nature are wrong, but that materialism (as a worldview) itself is a fallacious notion.
- After all, this is not a small matter. If you can't define nature, what can you define? If your ideas about nature (about the environment we live in) are wrong, how can anything you believe be correct.
- The materialist cannot define nature in a meaningful, coherent way. Only the creationist can offer a definition (view) of the world that makes sense. What this woman calls nature is a creation of God. (A God that is outside the physical universe) The world was created for man to live in; as a home for man. Man is in the world, but not of it, if you will. We have to think of the world as we would think of a house, as a place to live in. (Such an idea can be abused; but all ideas can be abused.) Man is separate from nature, in the sense 'nature' didn't create man, and in the sense he's not an animal; not on the same 'level' as birds, rabbits, fish, etc. [3.]
- Many people claim to find this a horrid idea; but I don't see why. The abuses of 'nature' that we see are not the result of this idea; there isn't anything inherent in the idea that leads to abuse. I would suggest the opposite is the case. I think it's just a cop out to blame all environmental abuse on the idea of the earth as a created home for man. There's no way a direct connection can be made from creation theology to environmental abuse. In any event, this isn't just an idea; but according to biblical theology this is a reality; and just pretending it isn't true won't change the reality of our situation. (If man is just a part of natural, a creature as natural as any other, the idea of abusing nature makes no sense.)
- Materialists like to claim there's no difference between mankind and the animals, but do any of them imagine animals are wondering how to define nature? Do any of them see a problem?
- Man and rabbit are both the products of god's creation; but this doesn't mean they are on the same ontological level. Man is made in the image of god, and the rabbit (despite what some liberal theologians claim) is not. There is an hierarchy in creation. The materialist can't give us a basis for hierarchy, which is why he runs his ship aground on the subject of definition. Definition depends upon hierarchy; no hierarchy, no definition. Materialism is a monistic worldview; and monistic wviews can't provide a basis for definition. (The definitions employed by devotees are not consistent with the monism of the system involved.)
- Wickson wants answers for her question, but going to Nature magazine is poor place to look. Materialism (being monistic) can't provide a rational definition of nature. (Or of anything if it comes to that. i.e. if all is one, if there are no 'borders' between things, there can be no individuality, and without individuality there can be no definition.) I doubt if she sees the source of her problem; but at least she was honest enough to admit it and to express it. (Most materialists/evolutionists simply will not admit the problems that are rampant within the m. wview.)
- That man and 'nature' are separate in no way makes them antagonistic. The non-human world (nature) was created for man; that being the case man and 'nature' were once a perfect fit. If you accept the biblical doctrine of the Fall, this is no longer the case, and there is no conflict within this model. The conflict isn't caused by any inherent problem, but by man's sinful nature. What does all that theological stuff mean? It means that there need not be a problem; that it's not necessary for man to abuse the environment, that it's not inevitable. Man's fallen nature means he will always, to some extent, abuse the natural world, but there's no reason this need lead to disastrous consequences. (eg. the end of the world scenarios) Man was created to be a steward of god's creation, and if he adopts that role and limits himself to it, life can go on for untold millenia. Being a steward means being responsible. Man has a duty to care for the earth. The bible in no sense teaches that man is free to do what he pleases with the natural world.
Notes;
1. Defining Nature Produces a Dilemma Creation/Evolution Headlines 11/09/2008
2. Fern Wickson, “What is nature, if it’s more than just a place without people?”, Nature 456, 29 (6 November 2008) | doi:10.1038/456029b.
3. Man isn't separate from nature in the sense he tore himself free from it (as in Michelangelo's famous sculpture) but in the sense he was created separate from it. (i.e. in the sense of being a steward over it.)
4. Nature;
- c.1300, "essential qualities, innate disposition," also "creative power in the material world," from O.Fr. nature, from L. natura "course of things, natural character, the universe," lit. "birth," from natus "born," pp. of nasci "to be born," from PIE *gene- "to give birth, beget" (see genus). Original sense is in human nature.
- if this is correct, our idea of nature has been borrowed (expanded) from the idea of human nature.
- nature is that which is born (generation) A strict materialism wouldn't speak of nature, as this would mean it was born, that it had a parent. M. claims that the first living organism had no parent.
5. Dictionary definitions;
American heritage dictionary;
#1. noun; The material world and its phenomena.
#2. noun; The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world: the laws of nature.
- the definitions are based on a m. wview entirely in this PC resource.
Century dictionary
- there are 39 references to nature given in this great dictionary. (Available at Wordnik.com) You could get a great basic education simply by reading this dictionary.
#6. 'The material and spiritual universe, as distinguished from the Creator; the system of things of which man forms a part; creation, especially that part of it which more immediately surrounds man and affects his senses, as mountains, seas, rivers, woods, etc.: as, the beauties of nature; in a restricted sense, whatever is produced without artificial aid, and exists unchanged by man, and is thus opposed to art. All things are artificial; for Nature is the art of God. Sir T. Browne, Religio Medici, i, 16.
- I think this means that in Brown's opinion all things are created; not just the things man makes. ie. nothing comes into being by chance and time acting upon matter. (However things may change by that process, after they've been created.)
Quotes and comments;
1. 'The evolution wars often revolve around the word “nature.” Evolutionists insist that science must use natural instead of supernatural explanations. It seems obvious that before arguing such issues, one must first define nature. That is not easily done, wrote a scientist at the University of Bergen in a letter to Nature.' [1.]
2. "Your editorial notes that many people define ‘nature’ as a place without people, and that this would suggest that nature is best protected by keeping humans far away. You question the value of this negative definition, arguing that “if nature is defined as a landscape uninfluenced by humankind, then there is no nature on the planet at all”.
This may be true. However, if we define nature as including humankind, the concept becomes so all-encompassing as to be practically useless.' [2.]
- That materialists can't define 'nature' is evidence that not only their ideas about nature are wrong, but that materialism (as a worldview) itself is a fallacious notion.
- After all, this is not a small matter. If you can't define nature, what can you define? If your ideas about nature (about the environment we live in) are wrong, how can anything you believe be correct.
- The materialist cannot define nature in a meaningful, coherent way. Only the creationist can offer a definition (view) of the world that makes sense. What this woman calls nature is a creation of God. (A God that is outside the physical universe) The world was created for man to live in; as a home for man. Man is in the world, but not of it, if you will. We have to think of the world as we would think of a house, as a place to live in. (Such an idea can be abused; but all ideas can be abused.) Man is separate from nature, in the sense 'nature' didn't create man, and in the sense he's not an animal; not on the same 'level' as birds, rabbits, fish, etc. [3.]
- Many people claim to find this a horrid idea; but I don't see why. The abuses of 'nature' that we see are not the result of this idea; there isn't anything inherent in the idea that leads to abuse. I would suggest the opposite is the case. I think it's just a cop out to blame all environmental abuse on the idea of the earth as a created home for man. There's no way a direct connection can be made from creation theology to environmental abuse. In any event, this isn't just an idea; but according to biblical theology this is a reality; and just pretending it isn't true won't change the reality of our situation. (If man is just a part of natural, a creature as natural as any other, the idea of abusing nature makes no sense.)
- Materialists like to claim there's no difference between mankind and the animals, but do any of them imagine animals are wondering how to define nature? Do any of them see a problem?
- Man and rabbit are both the products of god's creation; but this doesn't mean they are on the same ontological level. Man is made in the image of god, and the rabbit (despite what some liberal theologians claim) is not. There is an hierarchy in creation. The materialist can't give us a basis for hierarchy, which is why he runs his ship aground on the subject of definition. Definition depends upon hierarchy; no hierarchy, no definition. Materialism is a monistic worldview; and monistic wviews can't provide a basis for definition. (The definitions employed by devotees are not consistent with the monism of the system involved.)
- Wickson wants answers for her question, but going to Nature magazine is poor place to look. Materialism (being monistic) can't provide a rational definition of nature. (Or of anything if it comes to that. i.e. if all is one, if there are no 'borders' between things, there can be no individuality, and without individuality there can be no definition.) I doubt if she sees the source of her problem; but at least she was honest enough to admit it and to express it. (Most materialists/evolutionists simply will not admit the problems that are rampant within the m. wview.)
- That man and 'nature' are separate in no way makes them antagonistic. The non-human world (nature) was created for man; that being the case man and 'nature' were once a perfect fit. If you accept the biblical doctrine of the Fall, this is no longer the case, and there is no conflict within this model. The conflict isn't caused by any inherent problem, but by man's sinful nature. What does all that theological stuff mean? It means that there need not be a problem; that it's not necessary for man to abuse the environment, that it's not inevitable. Man's fallen nature means he will always, to some extent, abuse the natural world, but there's no reason this need lead to disastrous consequences. (eg. the end of the world scenarios) Man was created to be a steward of god's creation, and if he adopts that role and limits himself to it, life can go on for untold millenia. Being a steward means being responsible. Man has a duty to care for the earth. The bible in no sense teaches that man is free to do what he pleases with the natural world.
Notes;
1. Defining Nature Produces a Dilemma Creation/Evolution Headlines 11/09/2008
2. Fern Wickson, “What is nature, if it’s more than just a place without people?”, Nature 456, 29 (6 November 2008) | doi:10.1038/456029b.
3. Man isn't separate from nature in the sense he tore himself free from it (as in Michelangelo's famous sculpture) but in the sense he was created separate from it. (i.e. in the sense of being a steward over it.)
4. Nature;
- c.1300, "essential qualities, innate disposition," also "creative power in the material world," from O.Fr. nature, from L. natura "course of things, natural character, the universe," lit. "birth," from natus "born," pp. of nasci "to be born," from PIE *gene- "to give birth, beget" (see genus). Original sense is in human nature.
- if this is correct, our idea of nature has been borrowed (expanded) from the idea of human nature.
- nature is that which is born (generation) A strict materialism wouldn't speak of nature, as this would mean it was born, that it had a parent. M. claims that the first living organism had no parent.
5. Dictionary definitions;
American heritage dictionary;
#1. noun; The material world and its phenomena.
#2. noun; The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world: the laws of nature.
- the definitions are based on a m. wview entirely in this PC resource.
Century dictionary
- there are 39 references to nature given in this great dictionary. (Available at Wordnik.com) You could get a great basic education simply by reading this dictionary.
#6. 'The material and spiritual universe, as distinguished from the Creator; the system of things of which man forms a part; creation, especially that part of it which more immediately surrounds man and affects his senses, as mountains, seas, rivers, woods, etc.: as, the beauties of nature; in a restricted sense, whatever is produced without artificial aid, and exists unchanged by man, and is thus opposed to art. All things are artificial; for Nature is the art of God. Sir T. Browne, Religio Medici, i, 16.
- I think this means that in Brown's opinion all things are created; not just the things man makes. ie. nothing comes into being by chance and time acting upon matter. (However things may change by that process, after they've been created.)
Sunday, November 22, 2009
The Real Ontological Argument
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Richard Dawkins describes the ontological argument for the existence of God to be an infantile one. He pronounces himself offended at the very idea that “such logomachist trickery” could be used to produce such grand conclusions. And he’s correct to reject it, in my opinion, as ontological arguments boil down to the idea that if something can be conceived, it therefore must exist. [1.]
- It would appear both Dawkins and Day misunderstand the argument. The argument only concerns God; it doesn't apply to anything else. We're talking about the ultimate ground of Being, not bicycles or islands. (One monk thought he'd refuted Anselm's ontological argument by saying that thinking of a perfect island meant one existed. This is silly on many levels; there being no way to define a perfect island being merely one.) Ontology concern itself with the 'ground' of ultimate reality; or more simply with ultimate reality.
- People fail to ask why it is we can conceive of God. (Or of arguments for God's existence.) They seem to take this ability for granted. I think this is a mistake. I can't imagine an animal conceiving of a perfect god; or imagining that the fact it can conceive of god is proof god exists. People take such a virtuoso piece of thinking too lightly. In my opinion it's only because man has the (gifted) nature he does that he's capable of thinking at such a lofty level. ie. its' because man was made in god's image that he's capable of thinking about God. If he didn't have such a 'god-friendly' nature communication and relationship between god and man would be impossible. Because God desired such communion He made man in such a way as to make this possible.
- I don't think the ontological argument proves god's existence, but I think it gives evidence of God. It gives us evidence that man is not a material object, is not some kind of 'super-charged' animal who gained certain mental 'added extras' through some random success at survival. (i.e. evolution) It gives us evidence man is who God's word tells us he is.
- What Dawkins thinks of the argument is meaningless, as he knows less about philosophy than I know about astrology. He's claiming the ontological argument is just playing around with words; but what Anselm is doing is presenting a logical argument. The argument succeeds or fails on the basis of the premises; which in this case aren't universally accepted.
- When Dawkins says there is no God he's making an ontological statement. He's saying that reality does not include a creator God. The trouble with this is that he has no right (foundation) for making such a claim. He claims he's a mindless bit of matter, that was created by random mutation (i.e. error) and is governed by selfish genes. This then gives him no basis on which to make meaningful comments about reality. i.e. how could such an entity know anything about reality? (In his dismissal of the ontological argument he seems to be using logic; but he has no basis for logic. Materialism can't give an account of logic that makes sense.) When he says 'religion' is the cause of war he's making an ontological statement; but he has no basis to make such a claim.
In summary; the real ontological argument is that evidence for God exists in the ability of man to think of God, to think of something than which nothing greater can be thought. Only if the creator God portrayed in the bible exists, would such a thing be possible. It is possible, therefore God exists.
Notes;
1. The Irrational Atheist - Vox Day/106
2. Ontology;
'The theory of being; that branch of metaphysics which investigates the nature of being and of the essence of things, both substances and accidents. - Century dictionary
3. 'In Chapter 2 of “The Existence of Nature and God” Anselm′s Argument for the Existence of God is as follows:
1. God is something than which nothing greater can be thought.
2. God may exist in the understanding.
3. To exist in reality and in the understanding is greater than to exist in the understanding alone.
4. Therefore, God exists in reality. [Wiki]
- I can't see that #4. necessarily follows (but perhaps my lack of insight)
- How is it man (this trousered ape according to the views of the highly evolved) can think of something 'than which nothing greater can be thought'? If God is this 'something' and I think God is; then a bit of matter on planet earth has long ago climbed the ultimate summit in the universe. I think this makes the idea he's the result of pond scum plus copying errors and time is the dumbest idea of all time. (Unless we offend, let's call M2M evolution the least great idea of all time.)
4. I apologize for talking about Dawkins again; as I think I promised to stop this deplorable habit. (What it's like for Dawkins himself, to be talked about as incessantly as this I don't know. I can't imagine it's a positive thing for person's sense of reality or proportion.)
1. 'Richard Dawkins describes the ontological argument for the existence of God to be an infantile one. He pronounces himself offended at the very idea that “such logomachist trickery” could be used to produce such grand conclusions. And he’s correct to reject it, in my opinion, as ontological arguments boil down to the idea that if something can be conceived, it therefore must exist. [1.]
- It would appear both Dawkins and Day misunderstand the argument. The argument only concerns God; it doesn't apply to anything else. We're talking about the ultimate ground of Being, not bicycles or islands. (One monk thought he'd refuted Anselm's ontological argument by saying that thinking of a perfect island meant one existed. This is silly on many levels; there being no way to define a perfect island being merely one.) Ontology concern itself with the 'ground' of ultimate reality; or more simply with ultimate reality.
- People fail to ask why it is we can conceive of God. (Or of arguments for God's existence.) They seem to take this ability for granted. I think this is a mistake. I can't imagine an animal conceiving of a perfect god; or imagining that the fact it can conceive of god is proof god exists. People take such a virtuoso piece of thinking too lightly. In my opinion it's only because man has the (gifted) nature he does that he's capable of thinking at such a lofty level. ie. its' because man was made in god's image that he's capable of thinking about God. If he didn't have such a 'god-friendly' nature communication and relationship between god and man would be impossible. Because God desired such communion He made man in such a way as to make this possible.
- I don't think the ontological argument proves god's existence, but I think it gives evidence of God. It gives us evidence that man is not a material object, is not some kind of 'super-charged' animal who gained certain mental 'added extras' through some random success at survival. (i.e. evolution) It gives us evidence man is who God's word tells us he is.
- What Dawkins thinks of the argument is meaningless, as he knows less about philosophy than I know about astrology. He's claiming the ontological argument is just playing around with words; but what Anselm is doing is presenting a logical argument. The argument succeeds or fails on the basis of the premises; which in this case aren't universally accepted.
- When Dawkins says there is no God he's making an ontological statement. He's saying that reality does not include a creator God. The trouble with this is that he has no right (foundation) for making such a claim. He claims he's a mindless bit of matter, that was created by random mutation (i.e. error) and is governed by selfish genes. This then gives him no basis on which to make meaningful comments about reality. i.e. how could such an entity know anything about reality? (In his dismissal of the ontological argument he seems to be using logic; but he has no basis for logic. Materialism can't give an account of logic that makes sense.) When he says 'religion' is the cause of war he's making an ontological statement; but he has no basis to make such a claim.
In summary; the real ontological argument is that evidence for God exists in the ability of man to think of God, to think of something than which nothing greater can be thought. Only if the creator God portrayed in the bible exists, would such a thing be possible. It is possible, therefore God exists.
Notes;
1. The Irrational Atheist - Vox Day/106
2. Ontology;
'The theory of being; that branch of metaphysics which investigates the nature of being and of the essence of things, both substances and accidents. - Century dictionary
3. 'In Chapter 2 of “The Existence of Nature and God” Anselm′s Argument for the Existence of God is as follows:
1. God is something than which nothing greater can be thought.
2. God may exist in the understanding.
3. To exist in reality and in the understanding is greater than to exist in the understanding alone.
4. Therefore, God exists in reality. [Wiki]
- I can't see that #4. necessarily follows (but perhaps my lack of insight)
- How is it man (this trousered ape according to the views of the highly evolved) can think of something 'than which nothing greater can be thought'? If God is this 'something' and I think God is; then a bit of matter on planet earth has long ago climbed the ultimate summit in the universe. I think this makes the idea he's the result of pond scum plus copying errors and time is the dumbest idea of all time. (Unless we offend, let's call M2M evolution the least great idea of all time.)
4. I apologize for talking about Dawkins again; as I think I promised to stop this deplorable habit. (What it's like for Dawkins himself, to be talked about as incessantly as this I don't know. I can't imagine it's a positive thing for person's sense of reality or proportion.)
Friday, November 20, 2009
Materialism and the Fallacy of Abstractionism
A few brief comments on the fallacy of treating ideas as if they were physical objects.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'His [Dennett's] second suggestion is that religion could be a memetic symbiont
or parasite, which benefits itself at the expense of humanity. This is an intriguing concept, but largely a pointless one since there is absolutely no evidence that memes even exist and the idea smacks of confusing metaphor with reality.' [1.]
- I don't find this idea even remotely interesting. What we see here is the sad legacy of the Greeks; namely abstractionism. This is intellectual nonsense. Religion isn't a person, it's a word and an abstraction. He's confusing an abstraction (an idea) with reality. He's abandoned (with most of the modern world) the real for the abstract; abandoned the 'Hebrews' for the Greeks; abandoned theology for philosophy.
- To refer to an idea as a parasite is to make a category mistake. Parasites are living organisms, words are not. [On the other hand there's truth to the comment the 'priesthood' benefits at the expense of the general populace; but this by now is a trite observation.] The source of this continuing error is that in our day ideas (thoughts) are increasingly seen in physical terms, as referring solely to chemical reactions in the brain. It's my belief that we will never get rid of abstractionism as long as our elite thinkers are mired in the swamp of reductionism.
- The ancient Greeks were (in the main) materialists, and this is what gave rise to abstractionism. Plato's 'forms' can be seen as an early version of the 'meme' idea; or vice versa I suppose. As Augustine said, the forms only make sense if they're ideas in the mind of God. (i.e. ideas in the mind of a living and eternal Person) Being materialists the Greeks emphasized ideas over reality, the impersonal over the personal. (eg. we see the 'good' of the Greeks vs. the holy character of the Creator)
- Greek thinking fizzled out because being abstract it wasn't grounded in reality. (That's an exaggeration I know.) It does absolutely no good to talk about abstract ideals like the 'good' and 'justice' as there's no way to give them absolute definitions. (Only the verity of biblical creation can give a basis for true definition.) Humanist definitions just go round and round (in cycles) in the ever chaging fashions held by philosophers. What is out today will be back in tomorrow.
On a related note; [from an interview with Dennett]
2. "Tell us the story from your new book about the ant and the blade of grass.
"Suppose you go out in the meadow and you see this ant climbing up a blade of grass and if it falls it climbs again. It’s devoting a tremendous amount of energy and persistence to climbing up this blade of grass. What’s in it for the ant? Nothing. It’s not looking for a mate or showing off or looking for food. Its brain has been invaded by a tiny parasitic worm, a lancet fluke, which has to get into the belly of a sheep or a cow in order to continue its life cycle. It has commandeered the brain of this ant and it’s driving it up the blade of grass like an all-terrain vehicle. That’s how this tiny lancet fluke does its evolutionary work'' - Dennett
- Is this a true picture? How does Dennett (or anyone) know this? Wouldn't they have to get inside the 'mind' of an ant to know this? Wouldn't they in fact have to be god to know this? This appears to be storytelling to me. (Does the ant not climb blades of grass if it doesn't have this parasite feeding on it?) Why shouldn't we rather just assume this is some kind of instinct, some kind of programming? Why adopt the fantasy like story about cars? Wouldn't Occam's rule suggest we cut out the 'possession' story? (How does a parasite know anything about cows? how does it know it can find access to a cow by climbing a blade of grass?) This subject falls well outside any limited expertise I have, so I'm merely asking some questions here; but it does sound fanciful in the extreme. Dennett has gone well past description (the main focus of the scientific program) and has tried to reconstruct an event from the inside. All we see is an ant climbing a blade of grass. (Even if an ant afflicted by this parasite acts differently, climbing blades of grass, this still doesn't mean the parasite is purposefully using the ant by somehow commandering its movement mechanisms.)
3. Is religion, then, like a lancet fluke?
"The question is, does anything like that happen to us? The answer is,
well, yes. Not with actual brain worms but with ideas. An idea takes over
our brain and gets that person to devote his life to the furtherance of that
idea, even at the cost of their own genetics. People forgo having kids, risk
their lives, devote their whole lives to the furtherance of an idea, rather
than doing what every other species on the planet does—make more children and grandchildren.'' - Dennett
- Dennett has no warrant that I can see for making this claim. This strikes me as nothing but empty bluffing. Ideas aren't anything like parasites (apart from a poetical sense) and so his 'argument' collapses before it starts.
- Can there be a more revolting (repellent) view of human existence? (That some people find this 'idea' (picture) of life appealing is beyond my ability to understand; but then some people are attracting to ugliness and perversion aren't they?) This is an example of what christian thinkers mean when they speak of the death of man; of how the reductionism inherent in materialism leads relentlessly to the death of man. A human being being driven' the way a parasite drives an ant (if we accept the validity of that scenario) isn't a man at all; not in the way commonly assumed for millenia.
- I doubt very much if people devote their lives to ideas. The c. claims to be devoting himself to god, the Marxist claims to be devoted to the people and so on. Even if these claims are largely professed rather than honest, it would appear to be far closer to the truth to say that they're devoted to themselves and their own well being rather than to ideas.
- Dennett is another example of a materialist who pretends he doesn't have a religion; that e. materialism doesn't have all the attributes of a religion. (In fact it's a wview like Christianity and all the rest, and has no special status vis a vis other wviews.)
4. 'If Dennett’s weak logic merely provided some ironic amusement. With regards to his parable of the parasitic ant, it threatens to become problematic when he attempts to solve the dilemma of moral origins by positing an evolved free will that gives humanity the opportunity to usurp the Blind Watchmaker of natural selection and begin to guide its own evolution. [4.]
- I can't see that a materialist has any intellectual right to speak of free will. Surely if all is matter, everything moves in terms of cause and effect. (Even thoughts.)
- I don't see how Dennett can escape his car analogy here. If materialism is true then man must be 'driven' by some kind of material force, and cannot have free will. i.e. man cannot guide his own evolution. If he thinks he's guiding it, he's merely deluding himself, as he's being used as a car by some unknown entity. (A parasite perhaps?) Here we see another instance of how m.s refuse to take their own ideas seriously. Whenever the implication is something they don't like they just toss it aside. (This isn't the way 'science' is supposed to be done is it Daniel?)
- Dennett affirms free will (without warrant) because he's a political activist. i.e. it doesn't make much sense to condemn certain political practices and suggest we adopt others if we have no free will. So the materialist must quietly set aside his worldview when he gets up to make a stump speech.
Notes;
1. Vox Day/The Irrational Atheist/192
2. Slack, Gordy. “Dissecting God.” Salon. 8 Feb. 2006.
3. "
4. " p. 197
5. - Dennett's model of human existence has found expression in several sf novels. A recent one was by Carol Emshmiller (The Mount), an older one was by Heinlein (Puppet Masters). I haven't read either one, but offer this as evidence of how 'evolutionary' speculation has entered the popular imagination.
6. Here's an example of what I mean by abstractionism;
"The civilized world seems almost certain, sooner or later, to follow the example of Russia in attempting a Communist organization of society. I believe that the attempt is essential to the progress and happiness of [M]ankind during the next few centuries, but I believe also that the transition has appalling dangers. I believe that, if the Bolshevik theory as to the method of transition is adopted by Communists in Western nations, the result will be a prolonged chaos, leading neither to Communism nor to any other civilized system, but to a relapse into the barbarism of the Dark Ages." - Bertrand Russell/Vox Day/Irrational Atheist/254
[Russell, Bertrand. The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism (New York, 1920), 169]
- That's one of the worst (not to mention idiotic) examples of abstractionism I've ever come across. There is no such thing as mankind. Mankind is an abstraction; and is thus incapable of any feeling whatsoever, let alone happiness. Since an abstraction isn't a person, it can't make progress. This is mere twaddle. (The numerous idiocies this brilliant man delivered to the world are beyond comprehension.) What happens under communism (totalitarianism might be a better word) is that the individual (the family, the group) gets sacrificed (by the elite) to various abstractions, to various ideas. (We might as well call these ideas gods.)
- Russell had little idea of what was necessary to the progress and happiness of his butler let alone what was necessary for the well being of the entire human population. This is a case of egomania; a malady intellectuals are extremely prone to. These are delusions of grandeur. The man didn't have a clue what he was talking about. (Had he forgotten he's just a trousered ape, and that his thoughts are merely chemical reactions.)
- Where materialism is abstract, Christianity (with its doctrine of creation( is concrete. It's not 'mankind' that needs to be saved, but each man and woman on an individual basis. (Each person will answer to God; not the human race.) Christianity respects the individual, while materialism treats the individual as superfluous, and as having no importance. [i.e. mere matter is interchangeable]
Quotes and comments;
1. 'His [Dennett's] second suggestion is that religion could be a memetic symbiont
or parasite, which benefits itself at the expense of humanity. This is an intriguing concept, but largely a pointless one since there is absolutely no evidence that memes even exist and the idea smacks of confusing metaphor with reality.' [1.]
- I don't find this idea even remotely interesting. What we see here is the sad legacy of the Greeks; namely abstractionism. This is intellectual nonsense. Religion isn't a person, it's a word and an abstraction. He's confusing an abstraction (an idea) with reality. He's abandoned (with most of the modern world) the real for the abstract; abandoned the 'Hebrews' for the Greeks; abandoned theology for philosophy.
- To refer to an idea as a parasite is to make a category mistake. Parasites are living organisms, words are not. [On the other hand there's truth to the comment the 'priesthood' benefits at the expense of the general populace; but this by now is a trite observation.] The source of this continuing error is that in our day ideas (thoughts) are increasingly seen in physical terms, as referring solely to chemical reactions in the brain. It's my belief that we will never get rid of abstractionism as long as our elite thinkers are mired in the swamp of reductionism.
- The ancient Greeks were (in the main) materialists, and this is what gave rise to abstractionism. Plato's 'forms' can be seen as an early version of the 'meme' idea; or vice versa I suppose. As Augustine said, the forms only make sense if they're ideas in the mind of God. (i.e. ideas in the mind of a living and eternal Person) Being materialists the Greeks emphasized ideas over reality, the impersonal over the personal. (eg. we see the 'good' of the Greeks vs. the holy character of the Creator)
- Greek thinking fizzled out because being abstract it wasn't grounded in reality. (That's an exaggeration I know.) It does absolutely no good to talk about abstract ideals like the 'good' and 'justice' as there's no way to give them absolute definitions. (Only the verity of biblical creation can give a basis for true definition.) Humanist definitions just go round and round (in cycles) in the ever chaging fashions held by philosophers. What is out today will be back in tomorrow.
On a related note; [from an interview with Dennett]
2. "Tell us the story from your new book about the ant and the blade of grass.
"Suppose you go out in the meadow and you see this ant climbing up a blade of grass and if it falls it climbs again. It’s devoting a tremendous amount of energy and persistence to climbing up this blade of grass. What’s in it for the ant? Nothing. It’s not looking for a mate or showing off or looking for food. Its brain has been invaded by a tiny parasitic worm, a lancet fluke, which has to get into the belly of a sheep or a cow in order to continue its life cycle. It has commandeered the brain of this ant and it’s driving it up the blade of grass like an all-terrain vehicle. That’s how this tiny lancet fluke does its evolutionary work'' - Dennett
- Is this a true picture? How does Dennett (or anyone) know this? Wouldn't they have to get inside the 'mind' of an ant to know this? Wouldn't they in fact have to be god to know this? This appears to be storytelling to me. (Does the ant not climb blades of grass if it doesn't have this parasite feeding on it?) Why shouldn't we rather just assume this is some kind of instinct, some kind of programming? Why adopt the fantasy like story about cars? Wouldn't Occam's rule suggest we cut out the 'possession' story? (How does a parasite know anything about cows? how does it know it can find access to a cow by climbing a blade of grass?) This subject falls well outside any limited expertise I have, so I'm merely asking some questions here; but it does sound fanciful in the extreme. Dennett has gone well past description (the main focus of the scientific program) and has tried to reconstruct an event from the inside. All we see is an ant climbing a blade of grass. (Even if an ant afflicted by this parasite acts differently, climbing blades of grass, this still doesn't mean the parasite is purposefully using the ant by somehow commandering its movement mechanisms.)
3. Is religion, then, like a lancet fluke?
"The question is, does anything like that happen to us? The answer is,
well, yes. Not with actual brain worms but with ideas. An idea takes over
our brain and gets that person to devote his life to the furtherance of that
idea, even at the cost of their own genetics. People forgo having kids, risk
their lives, devote their whole lives to the furtherance of an idea, rather
than doing what every other species on the planet does—make more children and grandchildren.'' - Dennett
- Dennett has no warrant that I can see for making this claim. This strikes me as nothing but empty bluffing. Ideas aren't anything like parasites (apart from a poetical sense) and so his 'argument' collapses before it starts.
- Can there be a more revolting (repellent) view of human existence? (That some people find this 'idea' (picture) of life appealing is beyond my ability to understand; but then some people are attracting to ugliness and perversion aren't they?) This is an example of what christian thinkers mean when they speak of the death of man; of how the reductionism inherent in materialism leads relentlessly to the death of man. A human being being driven' the way a parasite drives an ant (if we accept the validity of that scenario) isn't a man at all; not in the way commonly assumed for millenia.
- I doubt very much if people devote their lives to ideas. The c. claims to be devoting himself to god, the Marxist claims to be devoted to the people and so on. Even if these claims are largely professed rather than honest, it would appear to be far closer to the truth to say that they're devoted to themselves and their own well being rather than to ideas.
- Dennett is another example of a materialist who pretends he doesn't have a religion; that e. materialism doesn't have all the attributes of a religion. (In fact it's a wview like Christianity and all the rest, and has no special status vis a vis other wviews.)
4. 'If Dennett’s weak logic merely provided some ironic amusement. With regards to his parable of the parasitic ant, it threatens to become problematic when he attempts to solve the dilemma of moral origins by positing an evolved free will that gives humanity the opportunity to usurp the Blind Watchmaker of natural selection and begin to guide its own evolution. [4.]
- I can't see that a materialist has any intellectual right to speak of free will. Surely if all is matter, everything moves in terms of cause and effect. (Even thoughts.)
- I don't see how Dennett can escape his car analogy here. If materialism is true then man must be 'driven' by some kind of material force, and cannot have free will. i.e. man cannot guide his own evolution. If he thinks he's guiding it, he's merely deluding himself, as he's being used as a car by some unknown entity. (A parasite perhaps?) Here we see another instance of how m.s refuse to take their own ideas seriously. Whenever the implication is something they don't like they just toss it aside. (This isn't the way 'science' is supposed to be done is it Daniel?)
- Dennett affirms free will (without warrant) because he's a political activist. i.e. it doesn't make much sense to condemn certain political practices and suggest we adopt others if we have no free will. So the materialist must quietly set aside his worldview when he gets up to make a stump speech.
Notes;
1. Vox Day/The Irrational Atheist/192
2. Slack, Gordy. “Dissecting God.” Salon. 8 Feb. 2006.
3. "
4. " p. 197
5. - Dennett's model of human existence has found expression in several sf novels. A recent one was by Carol Emshmiller (The Mount), an older one was by Heinlein (Puppet Masters). I haven't read either one, but offer this as evidence of how 'evolutionary' speculation has entered the popular imagination.
6. Here's an example of what I mean by abstractionism;
"The civilized world seems almost certain, sooner or later, to follow the example of Russia in attempting a Communist organization of society. I believe that the attempt is essential to the progress and happiness of [M]ankind during the next few centuries, but I believe also that the transition has appalling dangers. I believe that, if the Bolshevik theory as to the method of transition is adopted by Communists in Western nations, the result will be a prolonged chaos, leading neither to Communism nor to any other civilized system, but to a relapse into the barbarism of the Dark Ages." - Bertrand Russell/Vox Day/Irrational Atheist/254
[Russell, Bertrand. The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism (New York, 1920), 169]
- That's one of the worst (not to mention idiotic) examples of abstractionism I've ever come across. There is no such thing as mankind. Mankind is an abstraction; and is thus incapable of any feeling whatsoever, let alone happiness. Since an abstraction isn't a person, it can't make progress. This is mere twaddle. (The numerous idiocies this brilliant man delivered to the world are beyond comprehension.) What happens under communism (totalitarianism might be a better word) is that the individual (the family, the group) gets sacrificed (by the elite) to various abstractions, to various ideas. (We might as well call these ideas gods.)
- Russell had little idea of what was necessary to the progress and happiness of his butler let alone what was necessary for the well being of the entire human population. This is a case of egomania; a malady intellectuals are extremely prone to. These are delusions of grandeur. The man didn't have a clue what he was talking about. (Had he forgotten he's just a trousered ape, and that his thoughts are merely chemical reactions.)
- Where materialism is abstract, Christianity (with its doctrine of creation( is concrete. It's not 'mankind' that needs to be saved, but each man and woman on an individual basis. (Each person will answer to God; not the human race.) Christianity respects the individual, while materialism treats the individual as superfluous, and as having no importance. [i.e. mere matter is interchangeable]
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
The Mindlessness of Materialism
The nature of the mind has been debated since mankind first arrived on the scene. In the last century or so, and increasingly in the last several decades, many in the scientific community have denied that there is such a thing as the mind. In this post I'll take a brief look at a recent skirmish in the ongoing debate.
Quotes and comments;
Oct 23, 2008 — There’s a battle brewing over who controls your brain: nature or your mind. Materialist scientists are recognizing that creationists are getting a foothold on this hill and “declaring war over the brain,” according to an article in New Scientist. [1.]
1. 'After giving adequate white space for proponents of the non-materialist view (including Angus Menuge, J. P. Moreland and the Discovery Institute), Amanda Gefter clearly wanted to throw her vote to the reigning materialist paradigm on this matter of mind. She commented on an experiment Schwartz used to support the independent existence of mind, saying, “these experiments are entirely consistent with mainstream neurology – the material brain is changing the material brain.”
- This is akin to her saying, ''a brain wrote my article'' or ''my brain wrote this article.'' (But even then we have to ask who is this self that owns the brain? if the brain is all there is, and there is no mind, then nothing exists to own the brain.) Materialism amounts to saying there is no self. Does anyone (even the most committed materialist) really believe they have no self? To deny the mind is to create a huge problem for rational discourse; it's basically a denial our language is rational, or that it corresponds to reality.
- The denial of mind is a kind of totalitarianism; materialism as totalitarianism.
- I wonder how the Materialist (and no one is a materialist in their daily lives, only when they write articles) would account for the fact certain people want to deny the mind. If there is no mind, and only the brain, how do we explain the fact the brain wants to deny the existence of the mind? (If you're not laughing, you should be; at least that's what my brain thinks.)
Is it a case of narcissism? (A matter of the brain admiring itself in a mirror?) Is it a case of egotism? (And what is causing the brain to feel superior to the mind? what is causing this exaggerated sense of self-importance?) Is it a claim of sovereignty? (Is the brain trying to escape any influence of the mind? Does it desire to implement some kind of new dictatorship?)
If this is the case what part of the brain is involved in this lusting after preeminence, and why? What is motivating the brain to want to exterminate the mind? (And how is the brain knows about this 'thing' called the mind? Is this some kind of malfunction?)
2. In the middle of her article, Gefter got really serious:
"Clearly, while there is a genuine attempt to appropriate neuroscience, it will not influence US laws or education in the way that anti-evolution campaigns can because neuroscience is not taught as part of the core curriculum in state-funded schools. But as Andy Clark, professor of logic and metaphysics at the University of Edinburgh, UK, emphasises: “This is real and dangerous and coming our way.”
- Is it his brain that knows this is a real danger?
3. 'He and others worry because scientists have yet to crack the great mystery of how consciousness could emerge from firing neurons. “Progress in science is slow on many fronts,” says John Searle, a philosopher at the University of California, Berkeley. “We don’t yet have a cure for cancer, but that doesn’t mean cancer has spiritual causes.”
- That's interesting John; do you also know that mental illness doesn't have spiritual causes? Do you know that murder doesn't have spiritual causes? Do you know that intellectual pride doesn't have spiritual causes? (Do you know what 'spiritual' causes are?)
- Who is this we? If all that exists are individual brains, where does this 'we' come from? The trouble here (as elsewhere) is that the materialists smuggle all the attributes of mind into their model of the brain... and do so without warrant. (As Searle admits.)
4. 'And for Patricia Churchland, a philosopher of neuroscience at the University of California, San Diego, “it is an argument from ignorance. The fact something isn’t currently explained doesn’t mean it will never be explained or that we need to completely change not only our neuroscience but our physics.”
- I find it comical that a person who admits they don't have a clue how consciousness 'emerges' accusing other people of using an argument from ignorance. The fact is that we don't know. What we do know is that we need the concept of mind to be able to think and speak rationally.
- The fact something can't be currently explained does not mean it one day will be; this is the faith and the fallacy of scientism.
- One wonders how a brain can speak about things like 'our' neuroscience. This makes no sense to me.
5. “At one time it looked like all physical causation was push/pull Newtonianism,” says Owen Flanagan, professor of philosophy and neurobiology at Duke University, North Carolina. “Now we have a new understanding of physics. What counts as material has changed. Some respectable philosophers think that we might have to posit sentience as a fundamental force of nature or use quantum gravity to understand consciousness. These stretch beyond the bounds of what we today call ‘material’, and we haven’t discovered everything about nature yet. But what we do discover will be natural, not supernatural.”
- One wonders how the brain we call Owen Flanagan know what 'we' will discover in the future. The brains of materialist science admit to adopting ever changing views of things, but somehow their synapses know what views they will adopt in the future. Is this some new evolutionary capacity of the mind perhaps :=)
- People like Flanagan mistake creation for the material world. What they imagine to be merely matter in motion, is in fact a divine creation. (This includes the mind/brain complex.) What they call nature (the product of random motion within the physical universe) is in reality a creation of God. Their descriptions of what happens in the physical world is in fact a description of the creation. Materialist science is merely a description of the world, not an account of its origin or constitutional nature.
6. 'Andy Clark continued his tone of alarm over this battle, calling the intelligent-design position “an especially nasty mind-virus” because it “piggybacks on some otherwise reasonable thoughts and worries.”
- Andy; if all that exists is matter, tell me what this phantasm called 'nasty' is. Is a 'mind-virus' (a seeming non-existent entity) a physical object as well? How does your brain know what 'reasonable' is? (Maybe your brain would like to define it for me.)
Notes;
1. Minding the Brain, or Braining the Mind? Creation/Evolution Headlines; 10/23/2008
Quotes and comments;
Oct 23, 2008 — There’s a battle brewing over who controls your brain: nature or your mind. Materialist scientists are recognizing that creationists are getting a foothold on this hill and “declaring war over the brain,” according to an article in New Scientist. [1.]
1. 'After giving adequate white space for proponents of the non-materialist view (including Angus Menuge, J. P. Moreland and the Discovery Institute), Amanda Gefter clearly wanted to throw her vote to the reigning materialist paradigm on this matter of mind. She commented on an experiment Schwartz used to support the independent existence of mind, saying, “these experiments are entirely consistent with mainstream neurology – the material brain is changing the material brain.”
- This is akin to her saying, ''a brain wrote my article'' or ''my brain wrote this article.'' (But even then we have to ask who is this self that owns the brain? if the brain is all there is, and there is no mind, then nothing exists to own the brain.) Materialism amounts to saying there is no self. Does anyone (even the most committed materialist) really believe they have no self? To deny the mind is to create a huge problem for rational discourse; it's basically a denial our language is rational, or that it corresponds to reality.
- The denial of mind is a kind of totalitarianism; materialism as totalitarianism.
- I wonder how the Materialist (and no one is a materialist in their daily lives, only when they write articles) would account for the fact certain people want to deny the mind. If there is no mind, and only the brain, how do we explain the fact the brain wants to deny the existence of the mind? (If you're not laughing, you should be; at least that's what my brain thinks.)
Is it a case of narcissism? (A matter of the brain admiring itself in a mirror?) Is it a case of egotism? (And what is causing the brain to feel superior to the mind? what is causing this exaggerated sense of self-importance?) Is it a claim of sovereignty? (Is the brain trying to escape any influence of the mind? Does it desire to implement some kind of new dictatorship?)
If this is the case what part of the brain is involved in this lusting after preeminence, and why? What is motivating the brain to want to exterminate the mind? (And how is the brain knows about this 'thing' called the mind? Is this some kind of malfunction?)
2. In the middle of her article, Gefter got really serious:
"Clearly, while there is a genuine attempt to appropriate neuroscience, it will not influence US laws or education in the way that anti-evolution campaigns can because neuroscience is not taught as part of the core curriculum in state-funded schools. But as Andy Clark, professor of logic and metaphysics at the University of Edinburgh, UK, emphasises: “This is real and dangerous and coming our way.”
- Is it his brain that knows this is a real danger?
3. 'He and others worry because scientists have yet to crack the great mystery of how consciousness could emerge from firing neurons. “Progress in science is slow on many fronts,” says John Searle, a philosopher at the University of California, Berkeley. “We don’t yet have a cure for cancer, but that doesn’t mean cancer has spiritual causes.”
- That's interesting John; do you also know that mental illness doesn't have spiritual causes? Do you know that murder doesn't have spiritual causes? Do you know that intellectual pride doesn't have spiritual causes? (Do you know what 'spiritual' causes are?)
- Who is this we? If all that exists are individual brains, where does this 'we' come from? The trouble here (as elsewhere) is that the materialists smuggle all the attributes of mind into their model of the brain... and do so without warrant. (As Searle admits.)
4. 'And for Patricia Churchland, a philosopher of neuroscience at the University of California, San Diego, “it is an argument from ignorance. The fact something isn’t currently explained doesn’t mean it will never be explained or that we need to completely change not only our neuroscience but our physics.”
- I find it comical that a person who admits they don't have a clue how consciousness 'emerges' accusing other people of using an argument from ignorance. The fact is that we don't know. What we do know is that we need the concept of mind to be able to think and speak rationally.
- The fact something can't be currently explained does not mean it one day will be; this is the faith and the fallacy of scientism.
- One wonders how a brain can speak about things like 'our' neuroscience. This makes no sense to me.
5. “At one time it looked like all physical causation was push/pull Newtonianism,” says Owen Flanagan, professor of philosophy and neurobiology at Duke University, North Carolina. “Now we have a new understanding of physics. What counts as material has changed. Some respectable philosophers think that we might have to posit sentience as a fundamental force of nature or use quantum gravity to understand consciousness. These stretch beyond the bounds of what we today call ‘material’, and we haven’t discovered everything about nature yet. But what we do discover will be natural, not supernatural.”
- One wonders how the brain we call Owen Flanagan know what 'we' will discover in the future. The brains of materialist science admit to adopting ever changing views of things, but somehow their synapses know what views they will adopt in the future. Is this some new evolutionary capacity of the mind perhaps :=)
- People like Flanagan mistake creation for the material world. What they imagine to be merely matter in motion, is in fact a divine creation. (This includes the mind/brain complex.) What they call nature (the product of random motion within the physical universe) is in reality a creation of God. Their descriptions of what happens in the physical world is in fact a description of the creation. Materialist science is merely a description of the world, not an account of its origin or constitutional nature.
6. 'Andy Clark continued his tone of alarm over this battle, calling the intelligent-design position “an especially nasty mind-virus” because it “piggybacks on some otherwise reasonable thoughts and worries.”
- Andy; if all that exists is matter, tell me what this phantasm called 'nasty' is. Is a 'mind-virus' (a seeming non-existent entity) a physical object as well? How does your brain know what 'reasonable' is? (Maybe your brain would like to define it for me.)
Notes;
1. Minding the Brain, or Braining the Mind? Creation/Evolution Headlines; 10/23/2008
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Playing church in the fields of the Lord
The 'liberal' church continues to venerate Charles Darwin, and to denigrate creation. I want to look at a particularly absurd instance of this.
Quotes and comments;
Anglican Official Says Church Should Apologize to Darwin
Sept 14, 2008 — The Church of England official feels the Church should apologize to Charles Darwin for having been too slow to accept his ideas in the 19th century. The statement, to be posted on a website promoting Darwin’s views, reads:
"Charles Darwin: 200 years from your birth, the Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still. We try to practise the old virtues of ‘faith seeking understanding’ and hope that makes some amends." - Malcolm Brown [1.]
- I wasn't aware you apologized to dead people; but I guess this is one more example of how theology is evolving on the emerald isle. [This has the odor of praying to the dead.]
- You don't apologize for failing to understand something. (At least not in the real world) Contrary to what Mr. Brown thinks, the church can't apologize for anything, or to anything, since it's not a person.
- Maybe he thinks Darwin came back as a pigeon, and he's apologizing to the one that's sitting on his window sill. (As you may or may not know; some of the Anglican clergy now believe in reincarnation.)
- Maybe he ought to apologize to Darwin for burying him in a church. (i.e. since he was an atheist, and the family had planned a quiet ceremony in the country I seem to remember.)
- His apology is as phoney as his theology (or should that be clergyology?) You notice he doesn't apologize to creationists, for slander and distortion. (How convenient it must be, to apologize to dead people for things you never did.)
- Here we see christian liberals playing at church. (Their favorite form of entertainment) Children play doctor, and liberal theologians play church.
- Here we see the pathetic state of apologetics in the Humanist church. A defense of the faith has devolved into a defense of tourist attractions and famous Victorians. (These people would never dream of defending biblical Christianity of course - this being something they loathe, from the tips of the ringed pierced ears to bottom of their Gucci shoes.) Apologetics is supposed to be the defense of the faith, not the defense of famous enemies of the faith.
- Gee; I hope Charles got this apology. To make sure it got through to him I think we should send one of these gowned goofballs down with a copy of it. I'm sure Charles would like a printed copy. It might even make his day; in fact I'm sure it would. (We could hope our emissary would get lost on the way back... but I suppose this wouldn't be charitable. But if he doesn't make it back, I promise to apologize for having suggested this course of action.)
- "Faith seeking understanding'' when translated from the Greek means, ''we're looking to dump the traditional doctrines of the church wherever possible."
- This so called apology to Darwin strikes me as being a back handed attack on the doctrine of creation. (Which as we know has no proper place within the church of England.)
- Lastly, I want to say that if these comments have offended Charles Darwin, I apologize. (I do tend to get a little peeved over this kind of thing.)
Notes;
1. Anglican Official Says Church Should Apologize to Darwin; Creation/Evolution Headlines
2. 'According to The Telegraph, the statement was written by Malcolm Brown, the church’s director of mission and public affairs. He believes the church repeated the mistakes of the Catholic church in their treatment of Galileo.
- I think this is the first time I've heard a Christian liberal admit to making a mistake; or admit any liberal theologian has ever made a mistake. (Can we hope they'll one day admit it was a mistake to venerate Charles Darwin and his theory of materialistic evolution?)
- The Anglican church is as much a collection of fossils as the royal family. It's time to dig them up and throw them out. (Rowan Williams is the Mr. Bean of the English church.)
3. Brown’s statement also considers “anti-evolutionary fervour” an “indictment” on the church.
- so this is basically an apology (to atheists and materialists everywhere) for having taught the doctrine of creation. (Or in the case of the church of England, of having vaguely acknowledged it once or twice.) This apology is just another pretext for creation bashing. (Or in this case, hanky waving.)
4. You notice these pampered and powdered ones wouldn't dream of apologizing to true Christians, or to Christ (for having made a mockery of his name with their heretical ideas and slander).
Quotes and comments;
Anglican Official Says Church Should Apologize to Darwin
Sept 14, 2008 — The Church of England official feels the Church should apologize to Charles Darwin for having been too slow to accept his ideas in the 19th century. The statement, to be posted on a website promoting Darwin’s views, reads:
"Charles Darwin: 200 years from your birth, the Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still. We try to practise the old virtues of ‘faith seeking understanding’ and hope that makes some amends." - Malcolm Brown [1.]
- I wasn't aware you apologized to dead people; but I guess this is one more example of how theology is evolving on the emerald isle. [This has the odor of praying to the dead.]
- You don't apologize for failing to understand something. (At least not in the real world) Contrary to what Mr. Brown thinks, the church can't apologize for anything, or to anything, since it's not a person.
- Maybe he thinks Darwin came back as a pigeon, and he's apologizing to the one that's sitting on his window sill. (As you may or may not know; some of the Anglican clergy now believe in reincarnation.)
- Maybe he ought to apologize to Darwin for burying him in a church. (i.e. since he was an atheist, and the family had planned a quiet ceremony in the country I seem to remember.)
- His apology is as phoney as his theology (or should that be clergyology?) You notice he doesn't apologize to creationists, for slander and distortion. (How convenient it must be, to apologize to dead people for things you never did.)
- Here we see christian liberals playing at church. (Their favorite form of entertainment) Children play doctor, and liberal theologians play church.
- Here we see the pathetic state of apologetics in the Humanist church. A defense of the faith has devolved into a defense of tourist attractions and famous Victorians. (These people would never dream of defending biblical Christianity of course - this being something they loathe, from the tips of the ringed pierced ears to bottom of their Gucci shoes.) Apologetics is supposed to be the defense of the faith, not the defense of famous enemies of the faith.
- Gee; I hope Charles got this apology. To make sure it got through to him I think we should send one of these gowned goofballs down with a copy of it. I'm sure Charles would like a printed copy. It might even make his day; in fact I'm sure it would. (We could hope our emissary would get lost on the way back... but I suppose this wouldn't be charitable. But if he doesn't make it back, I promise to apologize for having suggested this course of action.)
- "Faith seeking understanding'' when translated from the Greek means, ''we're looking to dump the traditional doctrines of the church wherever possible."
- This so called apology to Darwin strikes me as being a back handed attack on the doctrine of creation. (Which as we know has no proper place within the church of England.)
- Lastly, I want to say that if these comments have offended Charles Darwin, I apologize. (I do tend to get a little peeved over this kind of thing.)
Notes;
1. Anglican Official Says Church Should Apologize to Darwin; Creation/Evolution Headlines
2. 'According to The Telegraph, the statement was written by Malcolm Brown, the church’s director of mission and public affairs. He believes the church repeated the mistakes of the Catholic church in their treatment of Galileo.
- I think this is the first time I've heard a Christian liberal admit to making a mistake; or admit any liberal theologian has ever made a mistake. (Can we hope they'll one day admit it was a mistake to venerate Charles Darwin and his theory of materialistic evolution?)
- The Anglican church is as much a collection of fossils as the royal family. It's time to dig them up and throw them out. (Rowan Williams is the Mr. Bean of the English church.)
3. Brown’s statement also considers “anti-evolutionary fervour” an “indictment” on the church.
- so this is basically an apology (to atheists and materialists everywhere) for having taught the doctrine of creation. (Or in the case of the church of England, of having vaguely acknowledged it once or twice.) This apology is just another pretext for creation bashing. (Or in this case, hanky waving.)
4. You notice these pampered and powdered ones wouldn't dream of apologizing to true Christians, or to Christ (for having made a mockery of his name with their heretical ideas and slander).
Monday, November 9, 2009
The Perils of Empiricism
Taking a break from our usual brilliant analysis of matters concerning the issue of Origins, we offer the following caveat.
The Perils of Empiricism
Back in the days when the world was perfect (so long ago that no one seems to be able to remember it) a woman by the name of Eve was out strolling in a beautiful garden. (This was the world's first garden, but we don't have the space here to go into the history of gardens, so we'll say no more about it.) She happened (just by accident the sources say) to wander past a famous tree that held a certain forbidden fruit. (It wasn't famous at the time, but became so later.)
She gazed at the fruit that hung from the branches of the tree. It looked wonderful. What would it taste like she wondered? What was its texture? What would the effect be upon the humors? It would be nice to know, but her good husband had told her that the Creator had instructed them not to eat of the tree; and that if they did they would die.
Death seemed like such an abstract concept. What would it mean? What would it be like? What would happen after? She'd never seen any creature die. It would be nice to know what happened.
Walking closer to the tree (which was not forbidden) she saw that a serpent was entwined around one of the branches. Its shiny body glistened in the sun. Walking closer still, in a world that had no fear for her, she saw that the serpent was eating a fruit from the tree. She was spellbound as she watched. Once the serpent had positioned the fruit, it took it in its mouth and swallowed it. Not being much of a naturalist she thought this was a vulgar way to consume a meal.
She couldn't help a small shudder of disgust with what she'd seen, but at the same time felt sympathetic toward the snake. Didn't the poor creature know it would die? Apparently not. It was sad, but she stayed to watch. She wanted to see what would happen, when this thing called death occurred.
She watched for quite a time, but nothing seemed to happen to the serpent at all. (We might say this spoke volumes, but we'd be getting ahead of ourselves.) This surprised her. She'd been led to believe that death meant the end of life, a cessation to being. She wanted to watch the serpent to see what would happen, to see if it would die at some later date. She went to another tree and snapped off a smaller bough, and brought it back to the tree. (Which would later receive a rather famous name.)
She held out the bough to the snake, and seeming to know her desire, it slid off its branch and coiled itself around the bough. With this accomplished she made her way home. What would that wise man she was married to have to say about things she wondered.
The two of them watched the snake for a couple days. Nothing negative happened to the snake. It seemed in perfect health. Eve didn't mention it, but she was convinced that the story she'd been told wasn't exactly true. It couldn't be, could it? She decided to take the serpent back to the Tree. The experiment was, in her mind, complete, and there was no reason to keep it away from its desired abode.
Once back at the Tree (which at that time had no name, Adam had named the animals, but hadn't got around to naming the plants yet) she held out the bough and the serpent slid back onto the branch it had left. Eve looked at the fruit. She reached out and took one, pulling it from its branch. She looked at it. It seemed the most attractive bit of fruit she'd yet seen. What wonderful properties did it hold, she wondered. Who could say. Only by tasting it, only by eating it, could she know.
Having watched the snake she knew she wouldn't die. Someone had told her something that wasn't true. Either God had told Adam something that wasn't true, or Adam had told her something that wasn't true. Of the two choices, it was easier to believe God was the one responsible. She knew Adam loved her, and couldn't imagine him telling her some story that wasn't true.
And so, she bit into the fruit and took a bite. Sweetness flooded her mouth. It was simply wonderful. She put a couple in her pocket and made her way home. By the time she got there she'd finished eating the first fruit, and had started on another.
Adam was there, and she told him all about what she'd done. He seemed alarmed for some reason, and so she took a bite of the fruit (this has been inaccurately referred to as a persimmon) and then offered it to Adam. "Here, try some. It's delicious."
What could poor Adam do? Like all the women to come, his wife had placed him in a terrible bind. If eating the fruit was fatal, she would die, and he'd lose her and be left alone. If he didn't eat some, he'd offend her, and the bond between them would become corrupted.
"You're not still worried are you?" Eve asked. "We proved that the story wasn't true. You saw the serpent as well as I did. It didn't die did it?" she said with a bewitching smile.
No. It hadn't; but what if death were a more complicated matter than he'd imagined? Still, this was likely an unwarranted fear. He reached out and took the fruit, and then took a bite from it. It was as wonderful as Eve had said.
The End
- M. Johnson
Notes;
1. All movie rights reserved. [Steven Spielberg can contact me at frfarer [at] gmail.com
The Perils of Empiricism
Back in the days when the world was perfect (so long ago that no one seems to be able to remember it) a woman by the name of Eve was out strolling in a beautiful garden. (This was the world's first garden, but we don't have the space here to go into the history of gardens, so we'll say no more about it.) She happened (just by accident the sources say) to wander past a famous tree that held a certain forbidden fruit. (It wasn't famous at the time, but became so later.)
She gazed at the fruit that hung from the branches of the tree. It looked wonderful. What would it taste like she wondered? What was its texture? What would the effect be upon the humors? It would be nice to know, but her good husband had told her that the Creator had instructed them not to eat of the tree; and that if they did they would die.
Death seemed like such an abstract concept. What would it mean? What would it be like? What would happen after? She'd never seen any creature die. It would be nice to know what happened.
Walking closer to the tree (which was not forbidden) she saw that a serpent was entwined around one of the branches. Its shiny body glistened in the sun. Walking closer still, in a world that had no fear for her, she saw that the serpent was eating a fruit from the tree. She was spellbound as she watched. Once the serpent had positioned the fruit, it took it in its mouth and swallowed it. Not being much of a naturalist she thought this was a vulgar way to consume a meal.
She couldn't help a small shudder of disgust with what she'd seen, but at the same time felt sympathetic toward the snake. Didn't the poor creature know it would die? Apparently not. It was sad, but she stayed to watch. She wanted to see what would happen, when this thing called death occurred.
She watched for quite a time, but nothing seemed to happen to the serpent at all. (We might say this spoke volumes, but we'd be getting ahead of ourselves.) This surprised her. She'd been led to believe that death meant the end of life, a cessation to being. She wanted to watch the serpent to see what would happen, to see if it would die at some later date. She went to another tree and snapped off a smaller bough, and brought it back to the tree. (Which would later receive a rather famous name.)
She held out the bough to the snake, and seeming to know her desire, it slid off its branch and coiled itself around the bough. With this accomplished she made her way home. What would that wise man she was married to have to say about things she wondered.
The two of them watched the snake for a couple days. Nothing negative happened to the snake. It seemed in perfect health. Eve didn't mention it, but she was convinced that the story she'd been told wasn't exactly true. It couldn't be, could it? She decided to take the serpent back to the Tree. The experiment was, in her mind, complete, and there was no reason to keep it away from its desired abode.
Once back at the Tree (which at that time had no name, Adam had named the animals, but hadn't got around to naming the plants yet) she held out the bough and the serpent slid back onto the branch it had left. Eve looked at the fruit. She reached out and took one, pulling it from its branch. She looked at it. It seemed the most attractive bit of fruit she'd yet seen. What wonderful properties did it hold, she wondered. Who could say. Only by tasting it, only by eating it, could she know.
Having watched the snake she knew she wouldn't die. Someone had told her something that wasn't true. Either God had told Adam something that wasn't true, or Adam had told her something that wasn't true. Of the two choices, it was easier to believe God was the one responsible. She knew Adam loved her, and couldn't imagine him telling her some story that wasn't true.
And so, she bit into the fruit and took a bite. Sweetness flooded her mouth. It was simply wonderful. She put a couple in her pocket and made her way home. By the time she got there she'd finished eating the first fruit, and had started on another.
Adam was there, and she told him all about what she'd done. He seemed alarmed for some reason, and so she took a bite of the fruit (this has been inaccurately referred to as a persimmon) and then offered it to Adam. "Here, try some. It's delicious."
What could poor Adam do? Like all the women to come, his wife had placed him in a terrible bind. If eating the fruit was fatal, she would die, and he'd lose her and be left alone. If he didn't eat some, he'd offend her, and the bond between them would become corrupted.
"You're not still worried are you?" Eve asked. "We proved that the story wasn't true. You saw the serpent as well as I did. It didn't die did it?" she said with a bewitching smile.
No. It hadn't; but what if death were a more complicated matter than he'd imagined? Still, this was likely an unwarranted fear. He reached out and took the fruit, and then took a bite from it. It was as wonderful as Eve had said.
The End
- M. Johnson
Notes;
1. All movie rights reserved. [Steven Spielberg can contact me at frfarer [at] gmail.com
Saturday, November 7, 2009
The myth of the young earth creationist
A review of 'The Darwin Myth - by Benjamin Wiker
Wiker tries to be fair to Charles Darwin in this brief biography, and I think succeeds. (He's far more fair to Darwin than he is to those 'irrational' young earth creationists; the favorite whipping boy of all christian liberals. I have never seen a Christian liberal present YEC fairly and honestly. Never.) The book is easy to read, informative, and much too short. (I would have liked to have read a lot more.)
Quotes and comments;
27. Darwin joked to a friend that he would, after his voyage, come back [to his club] and "beat the best of them at telling lies."
- I imagine he was joking, but in fact I think he succeeded. In my opinion (not Wiker's) he was the greatest liar of his day.
- Darwin had been a member of the Glutton club. (He was a spoiled rich kid in other words.)
65. After he'd formulated 'his' theory of evolution, Darwin wrote; "heaven knows if this agrees with nature."
- We see here that Evolution (M2M) is a product of Rationalism. i.e. you invent a theory, and then go out and look for data you can claim is evidence for the theory.
166. The claim YE creationists are irrational is simple false. If Wiker doesn't even know this much he shouldn't speak of what which he knows not. (Is Jonathan Sarfati irrational? is Ken Gentry? James Jordan? etc. Look at the writers on creation.com) It's sad that he would speak in such abusive terms. The fact a person doesn't agree with you doesn't make them irrational. Was Marx irrational because he denied Adam Smith? Was Mises irrational because he denied Marx. This is little more than the ad hominem argument. (One wonders what he means by irrational; he doesn't bother to tell us. The common meaning of reason (rational) is logic; to be logical. There's nothing illogical about the reasoning applied by YE creationists. His meaning can only be that YEC denies what he takes to be a 'well established fact'. But the whole point of the disagreement is over what we mean by e. and then over whether that's true. It's one thing to be mistaken (we all are with regards to some things) and another to be irrational. And who is to say? Is the majority always right? Is that the game he wants to play? (I might say that there are ye creationists who claim to believe in evolution. They rarely define E. either.) [3.]
- The thing that frustrates me (big time) is the Christian liberals use the word E. in so many different ways. Apart from being deceitful, this isn't scientific; in fact it's the antithesis of the scientific approach. (Our day has gone overboard in its pursuit of classification, but classification is a hallmark of science.) To use the word e. in many conflicting ways leads to all kinds of misunderstanding and needless conflict. It's a sign this debate is still in a 'primitive' stage of development. (I see no hope of this changing any time soon, as e.s love this confusion of the term. ie. if you deny e. they will bring up some minor variation and claim this is evolution. If you acknowledge such a variation happens you're called an E. denier. Not only do E.s love the conflation of terms, they deliberately encourage it and propagate it. Evolution must be the most misused word in the language.)
- Wiker claims that 'well established facts' must trump 'strict literalist' interpretations of scripture. [Who is he talking about? People like Jordan and Gentry, etc. have very sophisticated (multi-layered) models of scriptural interpretation.]This sounds plausible to many, but what does it mean? He never defines well established facts. Geocentrism was a well established 'fact' for 1500 years. (one could add many examples; such as the eternality of the universe) He believes in e. he tells us. This makes E. one of his 'well established facts'. He apparently can't imagine it being wrong. He conveniently neglects to define this well established fact. (Is he talking about so called micro-evolution (variation within kinds) or is he referring to m2m evolution? is he talking about an e. that is not 'directed' by god? or of an e. that is directed by god? (and in what ways.) We're given no idea what version (and there are many) he believes in. I don't get any grasp on what he's talking about. Anyone who denies e. is a fact is both irrational and a fideist. (These of course are the claims of the humanist critics of Christianity; and were developed as critiques by the German Idealists Wiker skewers in his book.)
- there is a tone of scientific triumphalism in this book. ie. the idea 'science' must trump scripture. i.e. if our biblical interpretation is found to be at odds with the proclamations of science it has to be wrong. (He does admit scientists are sometimes wrong; but apparently he has the gift of knowing when this is true, and when it's not.)
- he presents a false picture of YEC. Christians who oppose e. are doing so solely because they see (correctly) the atheistic implications. (He ignores the arguments against evolution theory, and thus portrays YEC as a caricature.
169. Wiker stresses the 'uniqueness of man's intellectual and moral abilities, but he doesn't tell us how man has come to have these abilities. Since he's an e. I assume it was via the e. process. If this is the case I don't see how these capacities (the result of random chance and the struggle for existence) can be meaningful, or in any way absolute.
- Though I favor the young earth position, I don't know how the world and man originated. I see no evidence anyone else does either. Because we want to know a thing, doesn't mean we are capable of knowing it. I doubt if we will ever know these things. We weren't there, and imagination will never carry us there. Our imaginings of the origins are far more likely to lead us astray than lead us to the truth. The truth about origins is simply unknowable. (This should lead us to humility, not to the reviling of those who disagree with us. Such behavior stems from pride.)
- many of us are intensely interested in the origins debate, but in the final analysis I don't think it's a subject that has much relevance or importance. (At least not to science or technology.) The world could get along just fine if there was no such debate, or no interest in it. In our day the origins issue has become (sadly) political. (As has most of social life; as needs be if people adopt Socialism.) Evolution has become an accepted form of anti-christian bias. The main reason e. enthusiasts (like P Meyers) are so big on evolution is that they can use it as an attack on Christianity. The e. papers I see are incredibly boring (not to mention unreadable, and well nigh incomprehensible) and of interest to almost no one who doesn't have a financial interest in the theory.
- one wishes people were willing to be honest about the subject, but they're clearly in no mood to do so. One can hope this will one day (before the sun goes out) change, and people will be willing to discuss the issue fairly, openly, and honestly.
Notes;
1. As there are more than one version of the evolutionary model, so there are more than one young earth model. (Arthur Custance combines old earth and young earth models. He starts off with an old universe, and then adds to that the basic Genesis position. i.e. six thousand or so years ago, God created the animals and mankind on a planet four billion years old, that had evolved to a point of being 'suitable' or ready for living forms.)
2. A problem for the old earth position is that Jesus clearly seemed to be a young earth creationist. Liberals get around this by saying, that in his earthly nature he didn't know any better than to accept the 'Jewish' fables as truth. (One problem with this is that it requires God the Father to let the Son appear like an ignorant fool, and to encourage people to believe in fallacious stories.)
3. 'Life’s built-in ability to adapt and diversify looks like Darwinian evolution, but it is not. Darwin’s theory of speciation via natural selection of natural variation is correct in principle, but it cannot be extrapolated to universal ancestry.
What we see instead is different kinds of organisms having been designed for different kinds of lifestyles, with enormous potential for diversification built-in at the beginning, but with time this potential for diversification has become depleted by selection and degraded by mutations so that we are now rapidly heading towards extinction. Intelligent design and rapid decay point to recent Creation and Fall, as the Bible tells us.' - 'How life Works' an essay by Alex Williams [Creation.com/2008]
- There are people who refer to themselves as young earth creationists who are more forthright in saying they accept evolution. (e.g. Todd C. Wood)
4. My respect for the Bible doesn't allow me to reject the young earth position in any outright manner. I believe the young earth position has to be taken seriously as an option. It's true that some evidence against its veracity seems insurmountable (e.g. size of the universe) but this is also true of materialism (e.g. the origin of matter, and the origin of life problems).
Wiker tries to be fair to Charles Darwin in this brief biography, and I think succeeds. (He's far more fair to Darwin than he is to those 'irrational' young earth creationists; the favorite whipping boy of all christian liberals. I have never seen a Christian liberal present YEC fairly and honestly. Never.) The book is easy to read, informative, and much too short. (I would have liked to have read a lot more.)
Quotes and comments;
27. Darwin joked to a friend that he would, after his voyage, come back [to his club] and "beat the best of them at telling lies."
- I imagine he was joking, but in fact I think he succeeded. In my opinion (not Wiker's) he was the greatest liar of his day.
- Darwin had been a member of the Glutton club. (He was a spoiled rich kid in other words.)
65. After he'd formulated 'his' theory of evolution, Darwin wrote; "heaven knows if this agrees with nature."
- We see here that Evolution (M2M) is a product of Rationalism. i.e. you invent a theory, and then go out and look for data you can claim is evidence for the theory.
166. The claim YE creationists are irrational is simple false. If Wiker doesn't even know this much he shouldn't speak of what which he knows not. (Is Jonathan Sarfati irrational? is Ken Gentry? James Jordan? etc. Look at the writers on creation.com) It's sad that he would speak in such abusive terms. The fact a person doesn't agree with you doesn't make them irrational. Was Marx irrational because he denied Adam Smith? Was Mises irrational because he denied Marx. This is little more than the ad hominem argument. (One wonders what he means by irrational; he doesn't bother to tell us. The common meaning of reason (rational) is logic; to be logical. There's nothing illogical about the reasoning applied by YE creationists. His meaning can only be that YEC denies what he takes to be a 'well established fact'. But the whole point of the disagreement is over what we mean by e. and then over whether that's true. It's one thing to be mistaken (we all are with regards to some things) and another to be irrational. And who is to say? Is the majority always right? Is that the game he wants to play? (I might say that there are ye creationists who claim to believe in evolution. They rarely define E. either.) [3.]
- The thing that frustrates me (big time) is the Christian liberals use the word E. in so many different ways. Apart from being deceitful, this isn't scientific; in fact it's the antithesis of the scientific approach. (Our day has gone overboard in its pursuit of classification, but classification is a hallmark of science.) To use the word e. in many conflicting ways leads to all kinds of misunderstanding and needless conflict. It's a sign this debate is still in a 'primitive' stage of development. (I see no hope of this changing any time soon, as e.s love this confusion of the term. ie. if you deny e. they will bring up some minor variation and claim this is evolution. If you acknowledge such a variation happens you're called an E. denier. Not only do E.s love the conflation of terms, they deliberately encourage it and propagate it. Evolution must be the most misused word in the language.)
- Wiker claims that 'well established facts' must trump 'strict literalist' interpretations of scripture. [Who is he talking about? People like Jordan and Gentry, etc. have very sophisticated (multi-layered) models of scriptural interpretation.]This sounds plausible to many, but what does it mean? He never defines well established facts. Geocentrism was a well established 'fact' for 1500 years. (one could add many examples; such as the eternality of the universe) He believes in e. he tells us. This makes E. one of his 'well established facts'. He apparently can't imagine it being wrong. He conveniently neglects to define this well established fact. (Is he talking about so called micro-evolution (variation within kinds) or is he referring to m2m evolution? is he talking about an e. that is not 'directed' by god? or of an e. that is directed by god? (and in what ways.) We're given no idea what version (and there are many) he believes in. I don't get any grasp on what he's talking about. Anyone who denies e. is a fact is both irrational and a fideist. (These of course are the claims of the humanist critics of Christianity; and were developed as critiques by the German Idealists Wiker skewers in his book.)
- there is a tone of scientific triumphalism in this book. ie. the idea 'science' must trump scripture. i.e. if our biblical interpretation is found to be at odds with the proclamations of science it has to be wrong. (He does admit scientists are sometimes wrong; but apparently he has the gift of knowing when this is true, and when it's not.)
- he presents a false picture of YEC. Christians who oppose e. are doing so solely because they see (correctly) the atheistic implications. (He ignores the arguments against evolution theory, and thus portrays YEC as a caricature.
169. Wiker stresses the 'uniqueness of man's intellectual and moral abilities, but he doesn't tell us how man has come to have these abilities. Since he's an e. I assume it was via the e. process. If this is the case I don't see how these capacities (the result of random chance and the struggle for existence) can be meaningful, or in any way absolute.
- Though I favor the young earth position, I don't know how the world and man originated. I see no evidence anyone else does either. Because we want to know a thing, doesn't mean we are capable of knowing it. I doubt if we will ever know these things. We weren't there, and imagination will never carry us there. Our imaginings of the origins are far more likely to lead us astray than lead us to the truth. The truth about origins is simply unknowable. (This should lead us to humility, not to the reviling of those who disagree with us. Such behavior stems from pride.)
- many of us are intensely interested in the origins debate, but in the final analysis I don't think it's a subject that has much relevance or importance. (At least not to science or technology.) The world could get along just fine if there was no such debate, or no interest in it. In our day the origins issue has become (sadly) political. (As has most of social life; as needs be if people adopt Socialism.) Evolution has become an accepted form of anti-christian bias. The main reason e. enthusiasts (like P Meyers) are so big on evolution is that they can use it as an attack on Christianity. The e. papers I see are incredibly boring (not to mention unreadable, and well nigh incomprehensible) and of interest to almost no one who doesn't have a financial interest in the theory.
- one wishes people were willing to be honest about the subject, but they're clearly in no mood to do so. One can hope this will one day (before the sun goes out) change, and people will be willing to discuss the issue fairly, openly, and honestly.
Notes;
1. As there are more than one version of the evolutionary model, so there are more than one young earth model. (Arthur Custance combines old earth and young earth models. He starts off with an old universe, and then adds to that the basic Genesis position. i.e. six thousand or so years ago, God created the animals and mankind on a planet four billion years old, that had evolved to a point of being 'suitable' or ready for living forms.)
2. A problem for the old earth position is that Jesus clearly seemed to be a young earth creationist. Liberals get around this by saying, that in his earthly nature he didn't know any better than to accept the 'Jewish' fables as truth. (One problem with this is that it requires God the Father to let the Son appear like an ignorant fool, and to encourage people to believe in fallacious stories.)
3. 'Life’s built-in ability to adapt and diversify looks like Darwinian evolution, but it is not. Darwin’s theory of speciation via natural selection of natural variation is correct in principle, but it cannot be extrapolated to universal ancestry.
What we see instead is different kinds of organisms having been designed for different kinds of lifestyles, with enormous potential for diversification built-in at the beginning, but with time this potential for diversification has become depleted by selection and degraded by mutations so that we are now rapidly heading towards extinction. Intelligent design and rapid decay point to recent Creation and Fall, as the Bible tells us.' - 'How life Works' an essay by Alex Williams [Creation.com/2008]
- There are people who refer to themselves as young earth creationists who are more forthright in saying they accept evolution. (e.g. Todd C. Wood)
4. My respect for the Bible doesn't allow me to reject the young earth position in any outright manner. I believe the young earth position has to be taken seriously as an option. It's true that some evidence against its veracity seems insurmountable (e.g. size of the universe) but this is also true of materialism (e.g. the origin of matter, and the origin of life problems).
Friday, November 6, 2009
A Voyage around Charles Darwin's Head
Something a little bit different for today's post. In honor of the big Darwin year celebrations, I offer a wee bit of a tale.
A Voyage around Charles Darwin's Head
- a short story by M. Johnson
One day a flea set out to explore the world. It planned to make a trip around the world, and then write up a report on its travels. It then hoped to publish this report for the benefit of one and all, and for the general progress of the world. That it wasn't the world it proceeded to explore, was hardly its fault, nor something for which we can blame it. It was, after all, only a flea. (Whether our hero was truly a flea, or some other insect, I can't tell, as my sources are of several minds on the subject. One source is rather insistent that it was a tick.)
And so, with considerable fanfare (even if all this was hard to hear for anyone with the human realm) the flea set out. Being an optimistic sort it planned to complete its journey in any where from three to five years. [We of course speak in flea years.] Leaving the great port city of his birth (not knowing this was, in another realm, known as a human ear) it set out with high hopes. Being young, it was sure it could conquer all obstacles, that nothing would prevent it from its success in this endeavor. (How blind we can be when young; but how blessed this naivete sometimes is.)
The flea, being ignorant of important events happening in the human realm, of which we'll say more shortly, went about his journey with a dogged determination. At the end of one year (after adventures too numerous to mention here) was, it calculated, a quarter of the way to its goal. In its travels it came to a wide and generous plain; there is rested a few days to gather its strength, and to recuperate from months of hard labor, as it made its way through dense forest. (It had reached the back of the neck, in other words.)
It was well pleased with its progress, and not knowing of what problems would soon begin to crop up, it perhaps wasted more time than it should have daudling about in this pleasant country. But at last, having rested and brought its journal up to date, it set out once more.
****
In the human realm things were not going nearly as smoothly. Because of all the hard thinking he'd been doing (ever since the days of the Beagle; the ship, not the dog) the head of Charles Darwin had been expanding. In fact the first thing his father had said to him upon his return to the pleasant fields and counties of the olde england was, ''my Charles, but how your head has grown.'' Most of us perhaps might have been offended by such a remark (at least those of us not dependent upon a family allowance) but Charles was delighted by the remark. Though his sisters, delicately claimed not to have noticed, Charles was certain his father was right. (Had the man ever been wrong?)
This was but the beginning of his troubles, as no sooner had he set the rump down in the easy chair he at once set to work on completing and publishing his journal. After this he set about compiling the notes for his great book. All this took its toll, as it involved many hours a day of strenous thinking; not the normal kind of thinking most of us do (when for example deciding what horse to bet on, or what stock to buy) but the kind of thinking that really (and I mean really) stretches the mind. Really serious thinking causes the brain, and indeed the entire skull, to grow at quite an alarming rate. Fortunately most of us are incapable of such intense and concentrated thinking. Looking back on his life, scholars are fairly well agreed that during the peak years of his career, his head was expanding at a couple inches a year.
In addition to all the stress of reading books and going to parties, Charles decided that it was necessary to get married. Being a very clever fellow he decided it would be wise to marry into money. (And where would we all be now if he hadn't?) This being accomplished (in an a thoroughly efficient and scientific manner) he set about having as many children as possible. His family you see, would be the workers in his great project; and his home would become his laboratory.
Year after year Charles worked hard on his theory, imaging the book he would one day write. Year after year his head continued to grow. Although he was aware of what was causing this growth, Charles refused to stop thinking deeply about the issues of biology and origins. If he had to sacrifice his life to the cause of science he was willing to do so. Soon he had to be fitted with a neck brace to keep his head upright, and to prevent it from falling to one side. (He'd taken several nasty spills on this account.) The size of his head made him reluctant to leave the family home and to visit. Though he was secretly proud of having the largest head in England, he was shy about drawing the stares and comments of outsiders.
****
The flea (you haven't forgotten our hero have you?) continued on in its journey; making copious notes of strange new things it encountered. (Unfortunately because of circumstances we will relate, this never amounted to a book, so I can't refer you to it.) It figured it would reach the half way point in its round the world journey in a year, but this turned out to be optimistic. It in fact took over 18 months to reach the halfway point, to get to the great western port. This struck the fleas as being odd, but it could find no reason for the greater time spent on this, the seconde quarter of the journey.
It had originally planned on taking a break of several weeks at this point in the journey, but now decided to cut this down to several days. It spent an enjoyable few days punting around in the canals of the great port city. (Unfortunately the name of the city has been lost.) Having refreshed itself, as well as it could in so brief a time, it heroically started out again. The next leg of the journey might well be the toughest. Reports told him of great mountains, canyons, gullies, valleys, erupting volcanoes, perilous cliffs, great dangers of all kinds. But being brave it didn't let these things dissuade it. It was ready to sacrifice itself for a noble cause if need be.
The journey soon began to get difficult, more difficult than it had imagined. Not one to complain, the flea carried on, with a resolute spirit most of us can only dream about. Progress seemed almost impossible at times, and several times the flea had to abandon its chosen route, and to backtrack and try another. In the end it took over two years to reach the grand summit of the three quarters mark. As it stood on this lofty peak, the highest in the realm, and looked out over the horizons, it felt proud of its accomplishments. It had been over four years since it had set out, but at this point the flea still had confidence it would complete its journey. (If it had known its sad fate it perhaps would have jumped from that great height, but ignorance saved it from such a rash event.)
****
Meanwhile, back at the Darwin home things were not going well at all. (And it pains me to write of these sad events.) Charles's head had now grown to such an extent that family members were required to hold it up for him whenever he walked about. (And eventually even when he sat down to write) Two of the children would follow him everywhere, one on each side of him, with a hand pressed against the head to keep it on the perpendicular. (And being good Darwins they never did complain, or so we're told in his autobiography.) It was now about 12 inches bigger than any head in the entire empire. (If one can rely on government statistics.)
His good wife (Emma) entreated him (this being something Victorian women did) to stop his studies. "For goodness sake Charles, take some time off to let your fevered brow cool. The doctor says this will allow your head to shrink back to more normal size." Though he loved his wife dearly, Charles rejected this advice. His wife had no true love of science. Good woman that she was, she placed some values higher than that of the progress of science. No, he wouldn't stop his deep thinking. He had work to do. He would not stop until the great Book was published. (Would that we all had such fortitude and dedication.)
Then, the great Book was published, and as every school child knows, the world has never been the same. (It wouldn't have been the same in any event, but let's not quibble.) At this point family and friends expected Charles to take things easy, to allow his brain time for cooling. His theory was all the rage, and they thought he'd now retire from his labors. (Didn't Hercules himself retire from his labors?) But though he took a day or two off (I think it was two) Charles went almost immediately back to the hard work of serious thinking. And of course his head (instead of shrinking as many had hoped) continued to expand. This causing all sorts of problems for our hero in another realm. (And you think your life is complicated, due to the web of influences you find yourself in.)
In due time Charles was forced to take to his bed, only briefly leaving it for the rest of his life. His head was so big (and so heavy) that a special bed had to be purchased and brought (secretly) to the estate. It had been specially made, with iron reinforcements in the frame. Of course all this caused quite an upset for the sensitive members of the Darwin home. But in spite of all this, they tried to be strong, and at least his daugher Henriette tried to take a positive view of things.
One day when some of the family were gathered around Charles as he lay in bed, she tried to comfort her mother by taking a positive view of things.
"Mama, I know you don't like to hear this, but surely this proves that papa's theory is correct. I think we're seeing proof of evolution right before us, and that papa is going to be the link to the next species to emerge.''
This hit some kind of a raw nerve with Emma, and she broke into tears. (What woman wants to hear that her husband is becoming some kind of new species, after all?)
Charles, ever the gallant one (even in times like this) tried to comfort his wife. "Don't worry dear, I knew I was right all along. I don't blame you for doubting, but you can't deny it any longer can you?"
This didn't please Emma for some reason. "Oh where's that Laudanum bottle of yours, I need to calm my nerves. What will the neighbors think when they see you? We'll be ruined. And what will I do if this begins to happen to the children. Oh sometimes I wish you'd drowned at sea...."
This was one of the very few moments of pique the woman ever had, and so we can forgive her for her rather unkind words. (Would any of us have stood up any better under the strain she was surely going through?)
Charles's head was now nearly thirty six inches across (from ear tip to ear tip) and still growing. But still the man wouldn't stop his deep and severe thinking. When told (by both doctors and friends) to stop, he would reply that there were still problems with his theory that he needed to address. He couldn't rest as long as anyone was out there bringing criticisms of his theory. No, he just wouldn't do it. His health meant nothing compared to the success of his theory. The health of his theory was what he was concerned with, not with trivialities like his own personal health. (Like a mother he suckled and nurtured his theory in the face of a hostile world.)
****
The flea wasn't doing well itself. (How little we know about realms other than our own; where no doubt things momentous happen all the time, and completely without our knowing.) It had taken a bad fall on its descent from the peak where last we left it. (It couldn't wait around for us to get back could it?) It had suffered some injuries that left it far from mobile for a few weeks; badly spraining an ankle, and receiving a gash to the upper body. When once it started out again, it could seem to make no progress, as the ground seemed to expand beneath it as it walked.
Month after month our hero labored on, but at last began to tire. It had now been over a year since he'd left the great Peak, but he could still see it behind him, seemingly as close as it had been six months ago. Its pace began to slow, and a kind of depression began to set in when it appeared the goal of the journey would not be met. There was still no sign of the great home port from which he'd left. He couldn't get any reports of it, or how far away it was. The territory it was sludging through seemed almost barren. It didn't want to believe it, but it knew it was getting old and wouldn't have long left. Seeing no hope of getting home before it died it sat down to complete its journal. (True scientist to the end.)
****
Back on the Darwin estate things were just as bad or worse. Since Charles refused to stop his deep thinking his head had continued to grow. It was now so massive it couldn't be lifted, and it was all he could do to move it slightly from side to side. In the end this kind of thing is fatal of course, and one day dear Charles breathed his last. Though family members were afraid the great head would continue to grow even after his death, it doesn't appear to have done so. (I discount reports it grew another 2 inches.)
As every school child knows Charles was buried in some famous church in London. What they probably don't know, is that only the body was buried. The head itself was considered far too large to fit into any kind of decent looking coffin, and so had to be left behind. (It was buried somewhere on the estate.)
****
And as our second story ended, so does our first. What had begun with such great hopes, ended in sadness and failure. (We can't all acheive great fame can we?) There was no fanfare, in fact there was no recognition at all. The flea died all alone on some barren plain. Forces beyond its control, had determined its fate. The worst thing of all (when looked at from one vantate point) is that it never did have any idea what had happened to it, had no idea of what intervening events had caused its failure. That it would have succeeded under normal circumstances can't honestly be denied by anyone. A better, more resourceful, determined, courageous explorer there never was.
If things had been different, it would have ended up a famous individual, and a great hero. Its notes would have become a famous book in that humble realm. But alas, it was not meant to be. The influences between realms is a little understood subject even today; and it was understood far less in that time. All we have are rather vague and unproven theories; theories that are little more than speculation. Maybe in time we'll come to understand these things better. Charles believe that we would, and coming from a head that large, what reason do we have to doubt him.
The End
Notes;
1. A Voyage around Charles Darwin's head - a short story by M. Johnson [All movie rights reserved]
A Voyage around Charles Darwin's Head
- a short story by M. Johnson
One day a flea set out to explore the world. It planned to make a trip around the world, and then write up a report on its travels. It then hoped to publish this report for the benefit of one and all, and for the general progress of the world. That it wasn't the world it proceeded to explore, was hardly its fault, nor something for which we can blame it. It was, after all, only a flea. (Whether our hero was truly a flea, or some other insect, I can't tell, as my sources are of several minds on the subject. One source is rather insistent that it was a tick.)
And so, with considerable fanfare (even if all this was hard to hear for anyone with the human realm) the flea set out. Being an optimistic sort it planned to complete its journey in any where from three to five years. [We of course speak in flea years.] Leaving the great port city of his birth (not knowing this was, in another realm, known as a human ear) it set out with high hopes. Being young, it was sure it could conquer all obstacles, that nothing would prevent it from its success in this endeavor. (How blind we can be when young; but how blessed this naivete sometimes is.)
The flea, being ignorant of important events happening in the human realm, of which we'll say more shortly, went about his journey with a dogged determination. At the end of one year (after adventures too numerous to mention here) was, it calculated, a quarter of the way to its goal. In its travels it came to a wide and generous plain; there is rested a few days to gather its strength, and to recuperate from months of hard labor, as it made its way through dense forest. (It had reached the back of the neck, in other words.)
It was well pleased with its progress, and not knowing of what problems would soon begin to crop up, it perhaps wasted more time than it should have daudling about in this pleasant country. But at last, having rested and brought its journal up to date, it set out once more.
****
In the human realm things were not going nearly as smoothly. Because of all the hard thinking he'd been doing (ever since the days of the Beagle; the ship, not the dog) the head of Charles Darwin had been expanding. In fact the first thing his father had said to him upon his return to the pleasant fields and counties of the olde england was, ''my Charles, but how your head has grown.'' Most of us perhaps might have been offended by such a remark (at least those of us not dependent upon a family allowance) but Charles was delighted by the remark. Though his sisters, delicately claimed not to have noticed, Charles was certain his father was right. (Had the man ever been wrong?)
This was but the beginning of his troubles, as no sooner had he set the rump down in the easy chair he at once set to work on completing and publishing his journal. After this he set about compiling the notes for his great book. All this took its toll, as it involved many hours a day of strenous thinking; not the normal kind of thinking most of us do (when for example deciding what horse to bet on, or what stock to buy) but the kind of thinking that really (and I mean really) stretches the mind. Really serious thinking causes the brain, and indeed the entire skull, to grow at quite an alarming rate. Fortunately most of us are incapable of such intense and concentrated thinking. Looking back on his life, scholars are fairly well agreed that during the peak years of his career, his head was expanding at a couple inches a year.
In addition to all the stress of reading books and going to parties, Charles decided that it was necessary to get married. Being a very clever fellow he decided it would be wise to marry into money. (And where would we all be now if he hadn't?) This being accomplished (in an a thoroughly efficient and scientific manner) he set about having as many children as possible. His family you see, would be the workers in his great project; and his home would become his laboratory.
Year after year Charles worked hard on his theory, imaging the book he would one day write. Year after year his head continued to grow. Although he was aware of what was causing this growth, Charles refused to stop thinking deeply about the issues of biology and origins. If he had to sacrifice his life to the cause of science he was willing to do so. Soon he had to be fitted with a neck brace to keep his head upright, and to prevent it from falling to one side. (He'd taken several nasty spills on this account.) The size of his head made him reluctant to leave the family home and to visit. Though he was secretly proud of having the largest head in England, he was shy about drawing the stares and comments of outsiders.
****
The flea (you haven't forgotten our hero have you?) continued on in its journey; making copious notes of strange new things it encountered. (Unfortunately because of circumstances we will relate, this never amounted to a book, so I can't refer you to it.) It figured it would reach the half way point in its round the world journey in a year, but this turned out to be optimistic. It in fact took over 18 months to reach the halfway point, to get to the great western port. This struck the fleas as being odd, but it could find no reason for the greater time spent on this, the seconde quarter of the journey.
It had originally planned on taking a break of several weeks at this point in the journey, but now decided to cut this down to several days. It spent an enjoyable few days punting around in the canals of the great port city. (Unfortunately the name of the city has been lost.) Having refreshed itself, as well as it could in so brief a time, it heroically started out again. The next leg of the journey might well be the toughest. Reports told him of great mountains, canyons, gullies, valleys, erupting volcanoes, perilous cliffs, great dangers of all kinds. But being brave it didn't let these things dissuade it. It was ready to sacrifice itself for a noble cause if need be.
The journey soon began to get difficult, more difficult than it had imagined. Not one to complain, the flea carried on, with a resolute spirit most of us can only dream about. Progress seemed almost impossible at times, and several times the flea had to abandon its chosen route, and to backtrack and try another. In the end it took over two years to reach the grand summit of the three quarters mark. As it stood on this lofty peak, the highest in the realm, and looked out over the horizons, it felt proud of its accomplishments. It had been over four years since it had set out, but at this point the flea still had confidence it would complete its journey. (If it had known its sad fate it perhaps would have jumped from that great height, but ignorance saved it from such a rash event.)
****
Meanwhile, back at the Darwin home things were not going well at all. (And it pains me to write of these sad events.) Charles's head had now grown to such an extent that family members were required to hold it up for him whenever he walked about. (And eventually even when he sat down to write) Two of the children would follow him everywhere, one on each side of him, with a hand pressed against the head to keep it on the perpendicular. (And being good Darwins they never did complain, or so we're told in his autobiography.) It was now about 12 inches bigger than any head in the entire empire. (If one can rely on government statistics.)
His good wife (Emma) entreated him (this being something Victorian women did) to stop his studies. "For goodness sake Charles, take some time off to let your fevered brow cool. The doctor says this will allow your head to shrink back to more normal size." Though he loved his wife dearly, Charles rejected this advice. His wife had no true love of science. Good woman that she was, she placed some values higher than that of the progress of science. No, he wouldn't stop his deep thinking. He had work to do. He would not stop until the great Book was published. (Would that we all had such fortitude and dedication.)
Then, the great Book was published, and as every school child knows, the world has never been the same. (It wouldn't have been the same in any event, but let's not quibble.) At this point family and friends expected Charles to take things easy, to allow his brain time for cooling. His theory was all the rage, and they thought he'd now retire from his labors. (Didn't Hercules himself retire from his labors?) But though he took a day or two off (I think it was two) Charles went almost immediately back to the hard work of serious thinking. And of course his head (instead of shrinking as many had hoped) continued to expand. This causing all sorts of problems for our hero in another realm. (And you think your life is complicated, due to the web of influences you find yourself in.)
In due time Charles was forced to take to his bed, only briefly leaving it for the rest of his life. His head was so big (and so heavy) that a special bed had to be purchased and brought (secretly) to the estate. It had been specially made, with iron reinforcements in the frame. Of course all this caused quite an upset for the sensitive members of the Darwin home. But in spite of all this, they tried to be strong, and at least his daugher Henriette tried to take a positive view of things.
One day when some of the family were gathered around Charles as he lay in bed, she tried to comfort her mother by taking a positive view of things.
"Mama, I know you don't like to hear this, but surely this proves that papa's theory is correct. I think we're seeing proof of evolution right before us, and that papa is going to be the link to the next species to emerge.''
This hit some kind of a raw nerve with Emma, and she broke into tears. (What woman wants to hear that her husband is becoming some kind of new species, after all?)
Charles, ever the gallant one (even in times like this) tried to comfort his wife. "Don't worry dear, I knew I was right all along. I don't blame you for doubting, but you can't deny it any longer can you?"
This didn't please Emma for some reason. "Oh where's that Laudanum bottle of yours, I need to calm my nerves. What will the neighbors think when they see you? We'll be ruined. And what will I do if this begins to happen to the children. Oh sometimes I wish you'd drowned at sea...."
This was one of the very few moments of pique the woman ever had, and so we can forgive her for her rather unkind words. (Would any of us have stood up any better under the strain she was surely going through?)
Charles's head was now nearly thirty six inches across (from ear tip to ear tip) and still growing. But still the man wouldn't stop his deep and severe thinking. When told (by both doctors and friends) to stop, he would reply that there were still problems with his theory that he needed to address. He couldn't rest as long as anyone was out there bringing criticisms of his theory. No, he just wouldn't do it. His health meant nothing compared to the success of his theory. The health of his theory was what he was concerned with, not with trivialities like his own personal health. (Like a mother he suckled and nurtured his theory in the face of a hostile world.)
****
The flea wasn't doing well itself. (How little we know about realms other than our own; where no doubt things momentous happen all the time, and completely without our knowing.) It had taken a bad fall on its descent from the peak where last we left it. (It couldn't wait around for us to get back could it?) It had suffered some injuries that left it far from mobile for a few weeks; badly spraining an ankle, and receiving a gash to the upper body. When once it started out again, it could seem to make no progress, as the ground seemed to expand beneath it as it walked.
Month after month our hero labored on, but at last began to tire. It had now been over a year since he'd left the great Peak, but he could still see it behind him, seemingly as close as it had been six months ago. Its pace began to slow, and a kind of depression began to set in when it appeared the goal of the journey would not be met. There was still no sign of the great home port from which he'd left. He couldn't get any reports of it, or how far away it was. The territory it was sludging through seemed almost barren. It didn't want to believe it, but it knew it was getting old and wouldn't have long left. Seeing no hope of getting home before it died it sat down to complete its journal. (True scientist to the end.)
****
Back on the Darwin estate things were just as bad or worse. Since Charles refused to stop his deep thinking his head had continued to grow. It was now so massive it couldn't be lifted, and it was all he could do to move it slightly from side to side. In the end this kind of thing is fatal of course, and one day dear Charles breathed his last. Though family members were afraid the great head would continue to grow even after his death, it doesn't appear to have done so. (I discount reports it grew another 2 inches.)
As every school child knows Charles was buried in some famous church in London. What they probably don't know, is that only the body was buried. The head itself was considered far too large to fit into any kind of decent looking coffin, and so had to be left behind. (It was buried somewhere on the estate.)
****
And as our second story ended, so does our first. What had begun with such great hopes, ended in sadness and failure. (We can't all acheive great fame can we?) There was no fanfare, in fact there was no recognition at all. The flea died all alone on some barren plain. Forces beyond its control, had determined its fate. The worst thing of all (when looked at from one vantate point) is that it never did have any idea what had happened to it, had no idea of what intervening events had caused its failure. That it would have succeeded under normal circumstances can't honestly be denied by anyone. A better, more resourceful, determined, courageous explorer there never was.
If things had been different, it would have ended up a famous individual, and a great hero. Its notes would have become a famous book in that humble realm. But alas, it was not meant to be. The influences between realms is a little understood subject even today; and it was understood far less in that time. All we have are rather vague and unproven theories; theories that are little more than speculation. Maybe in time we'll come to understand these things better. Charles believe that we would, and coming from a head that large, what reason do we have to doubt him.
The End
Notes;
1. A Voyage around Charles Darwin's head - a short story by M. Johnson [All movie rights reserved]
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Scientism, and the conflation of reality with matter
An error I see a lot in the writings by Materialists is the conflation of reality with matter. You'd think the idea would be an obvious fallacy, but it seems to be a popular notion.
Quotes and comments;
Angry Atheists Arrogate Authority in Science
1. August 28, 2008 — Can science contribute to religious studies? Only to destroy it, think some atheistic scientists. “In reality, the only contribution that science can make to the ideas of religion is atheism,” announced Matthew Cobb and Jerry Coyne in a letter to Nature. [1.]
- Someone needs to tell these guys that science isn't a person; and thus has nothing to say about religion or atheism. (Materialists like to reify science to give it a singleness of identity and belief; a 'singleness' it does not have. They thus try to turn 'science' into an all knowing, all wise god.)
- one wonders how a little speck of matter has any foundation for making such a grandiose claim.
2. “There is a fundamental conflict here, one that can never be reconciled until all religions cease making claims about the nature of reality.”
- The intellectual level of this complaint struggles to reach the pinnacle of high school sophistication. [It depends entirely on the old debating trick of defining your terms in such a way you can't lose.] First of all we need to ask them to define religion, and then ask why we should accept their definition. In most cases atheists mean Christianity, but won't come out and say so. The trouble with this 'religion' talk is that religion is an obsolete term. (Maybe if they'd kept up with philosophy they'd know this.) The only term that has any meaning in the modern world is world view. The authors want to distinguish between Materialism (good) and 'religion' (bad) but this is nothing but a debating trick. All people have a worldview, and these guys are no exception. (Darwinists love to play word games, to use vague terms, to engage in equivocation, and other similar maneuvers; all with the purpose of exempting themselves from their own criterion of criticism.)
- There are many things that aren't material, but are nontheless real. (e.g. reason, logic, truth, information, justice, goodness, numbers, equations, perfect circles, thought, words, language, etc. Not to mention God.) To conflate matter and reality, in the face of all this evidence is surely a sign Materialism is a fallacious doctrine.
- Maybe these guys would like to define reality for us. Maybe they'd like to tell us how they know reality exists, or how they can know it exists, or how they can know what it is. (It's laughable for human beings to claim they know the nature of ultimate reality.) How do they know that reality is singular and not plural? How do they know reality is objective and not subjective? How do they know reality is unchanging? How do they know there's only one level to reality? There may be many levels of reality. [I could go on and on here, as this is an impossibly complex question.]
- Pretending materialism has some special status as a worldview is a joke. It's as much a 'religion' as Christianity or Buddhism. (A worldview can be briefly defined as a network of beliefs that seek to answer all the major questions of human existence... in a coherent and non-contradictory manner.) Materialists used to insist that Humanism was a religion, now they deny it. It's hard to take this kind of self serving waffling on the issue seriously.
- Materialists hate the idea of worldview, because they know theirs is incoherent and self-contradictory. (e.g. the chasm that exists between 'fact' and value.) The comical thing is that although they obviously have a worldview, they deny that they do.
- I can tell them right now, that no 'religion' (including Materialism) is going to stop making claims about reality. They're living in a dream world if they think this is going to happen. (Or maybe I should have said in a state of unreality.)
Notes;
1. Angry Atheists Arrogate Authority in Science Creation/Evolution Headlines 08/28/2008
August 28, 2008 — Can science contribute to religious studies? Only to destroy it, think some atheistic scientists. “In reality, the only contribution that science can make to the ideas of religion is atheism,” announced Matthew Cobb and Jerry Coyne in a letter to Nature.
- Cobb and Coyne were taking issue with Nature’s editorial July 17 about John Templeton’s legacy.
2. "A worldview is no good if you can't live it.'' - Ronald Nash [lecture series; History of Philosophy and Christian thought/Worldviews]
- The Materialist wview can't be lived out; i.e. people can't live in terms consistent with this wview.
Quotes and comments;
Angry Atheists Arrogate Authority in Science
1. August 28, 2008 — Can science contribute to religious studies? Only to destroy it, think some atheistic scientists. “In reality, the only contribution that science can make to the ideas of religion is atheism,” announced Matthew Cobb and Jerry Coyne in a letter to Nature. [1.]
- Someone needs to tell these guys that science isn't a person; and thus has nothing to say about religion or atheism. (Materialists like to reify science to give it a singleness of identity and belief; a 'singleness' it does not have. They thus try to turn 'science' into an all knowing, all wise god.)
- one wonders how a little speck of matter has any foundation for making such a grandiose claim.
2. “There is a fundamental conflict here, one that can never be reconciled until all religions cease making claims about the nature of reality.”
- The intellectual level of this complaint struggles to reach the pinnacle of high school sophistication. [It depends entirely on the old debating trick of defining your terms in such a way you can't lose.] First of all we need to ask them to define religion, and then ask why we should accept their definition. In most cases atheists mean Christianity, but won't come out and say so. The trouble with this 'religion' talk is that religion is an obsolete term. (Maybe if they'd kept up with philosophy they'd know this.) The only term that has any meaning in the modern world is world view. The authors want to distinguish between Materialism (good) and 'religion' (bad) but this is nothing but a debating trick. All people have a worldview, and these guys are no exception. (Darwinists love to play word games, to use vague terms, to engage in equivocation, and other similar maneuvers; all with the purpose of exempting themselves from their own criterion of criticism.)
- There are many things that aren't material, but are nontheless real. (e.g. reason, logic, truth, information, justice, goodness, numbers, equations, perfect circles, thought, words, language, etc. Not to mention God.) To conflate matter and reality, in the face of all this evidence is surely a sign Materialism is a fallacious doctrine.
- Maybe these guys would like to define reality for us. Maybe they'd like to tell us how they know reality exists, or how they can know it exists, or how they can know what it is. (It's laughable for human beings to claim they know the nature of ultimate reality.) How do they know that reality is singular and not plural? How do they know reality is objective and not subjective? How do they know reality is unchanging? How do they know there's only one level to reality? There may be many levels of reality. [I could go on and on here, as this is an impossibly complex question.]
- Pretending materialism has some special status as a worldview is a joke. It's as much a 'religion' as Christianity or Buddhism. (A worldview can be briefly defined as a network of beliefs that seek to answer all the major questions of human existence... in a coherent and non-contradictory manner.) Materialists used to insist that Humanism was a religion, now they deny it. It's hard to take this kind of self serving waffling on the issue seriously.
- Materialists hate the idea of worldview, because they know theirs is incoherent and self-contradictory. (e.g. the chasm that exists between 'fact' and value.) The comical thing is that although they obviously have a worldview, they deny that they do.
- I can tell them right now, that no 'religion' (including Materialism) is going to stop making claims about reality. They're living in a dream world if they think this is going to happen. (Or maybe I should have said in a state of unreality.)
Notes;
1. Angry Atheists Arrogate Authority in Science Creation/Evolution Headlines 08/28/2008
August 28, 2008 — Can science contribute to religious studies? Only to destroy it, think some atheistic scientists. “In reality, the only contribution that science can make to the ideas of religion is atheism,” announced Matthew Cobb and Jerry Coyne in a letter to Nature.
- Cobb and Coyne were taking issue with Nature’s editorial July 17 about John Templeton’s legacy.
2. "A worldview is no good if you can't live it.'' - Ronald Nash [lecture series; History of Philosophy and Christian thought/Worldviews]
- The Materialist wview can't be lived out; i.e. people can't live in terms consistent with this wview.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
The Simple Science of Flight
Going through the shelves recently I saw entitled, 'The simple science of flight'. The author seems to be confused. Flight isn't at all simple. Flight doesn't suddenly become (after millenia) 'simple' because you understand how it works. This is a major fallacy of scientism. I see this kind of thing all over the place. The fallacy is obvious. The fact I can understand how a computer works doesn't make it simple. If 'flight' (an annoying abstraction) were so 'simple' why did it apparently take millenia for people to figure it out? But this too confuses the issue. Nothing that is the result of intelligent design is simple, for the reason that intelligence isn't simple. Rocks are (relatively) simple; intelligence are not. (Rocks are far from simple we're discovering; an example I came across recently is involves how sand can be turned to rock by a chemical released by a micro-organism.) [1.] Intelligence is the least 'simple' thing we know about, this being the case it seems inappropriate to call the creations of Intelligence simple.
- Whether we're looking at a bird that flies or an airplane, the flying behavior isn't simple. If you wanted a word for it, it would be intelligent. I think the reason so many people in our day see things as 'simple' is that they're materialists, and this worldview requires them to see things in terms of physical law acting upon matter. This is a failure to understand how complexity comes into being. The laws of physics (which are not simple) can never create a flying creature. (Not even something as relatively simple as an airplane; which is orders of magnitude more simple than a bird.) The laws of physics acting upon inert matter (and the elements are far from simple, but display a vast intelligence) could never produce what this author calls the 'simple' science of flight. That birds fly has nothing to do with science, but is a result of intelligent creation. (That airplanes fly has to do with science and intelligent design.)
- Implicit in this 'campaign' (it seems to be such at least) to portray everything as really (if you only knew it) simple is the attempt to deny intelligent design. i.e. if things are simple (even such amazing processes as bird flight) then we hardly need to think in terms of a Creator do we kids?
- The author speaks of the 'science' of flight; well, I'd like to know how we can have science without intelligence. i.e. if something took human beings millenia to understand, even on the banal level of description, how can one in good conscience call it simple? [Perhaps the person doesn't know what the word simple means. The word has roots in the word single. e.g. a single thread, or we might say a single cause, or a single means. What we see in 'flight' is a complex of causes or means. i.e. many things are involved, all working together for a purpose.]
- In summary, flight is only simple if you don't fully understand it. To describe how something works, is not the same as understanding how it came into being. With this lack of understanding comes a lack of praise, a lack of gratitude, and a lack of worship.
Notes;
1. From sand to rock - quickly! - David Catchpoole
- Whether we're looking at a bird that flies or an airplane, the flying behavior isn't simple. If you wanted a word for it, it would be intelligent. I think the reason so many people in our day see things as 'simple' is that they're materialists, and this worldview requires them to see things in terms of physical law acting upon matter. This is a failure to understand how complexity comes into being. The laws of physics (which are not simple) can never create a flying creature. (Not even something as relatively simple as an airplane; which is orders of magnitude more simple than a bird.) The laws of physics acting upon inert matter (and the elements are far from simple, but display a vast intelligence) could never produce what this author calls the 'simple' science of flight. That birds fly has nothing to do with science, but is a result of intelligent creation. (That airplanes fly has to do with science and intelligent design.)
- Implicit in this 'campaign' (it seems to be such at least) to portray everything as really (if you only knew it) simple is the attempt to deny intelligent design. i.e. if things are simple (even such amazing processes as bird flight) then we hardly need to think in terms of a Creator do we kids?
- The author speaks of the 'science' of flight; well, I'd like to know how we can have science without intelligence. i.e. if something took human beings millenia to understand, even on the banal level of description, how can one in good conscience call it simple? [Perhaps the person doesn't know what the word simple means. The word has roots in the word single. e.g. a single thread, or we might say a single cause, or a single means. What we see in 'flight' is a complex of causes or means. i.e. many things are involved, all working together for a purpose.]
- In summary, flight is only simple if you don't fully understand it. To describe how something works, is not the same as understanding how it came into being. With this lack of understanding comes a lack of praise, a lack of gratitude, and a lack of worship.
Notes;
1. From sand to rock - quickly! - David Catchpoole
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)