Creation and the body
In the modern world there is a great deal of speculation about who or what human beings are. There is much speculation of what mind is, what intelligence is. People ask whether man can exist without a body, and other questions. We even have people who claim man 'should' evolve past being human, and become a machine. In my view most of this thinking is fallacious and based on a confusion over mankind's real nature.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Many have in recent years discussed the nature of the body/spirit interaction. Herman Bavinck (1854—1921) came to a conclusion which brings out a nice distinction with intriguing implications.'
"The body, although it is not the cause of all these activities of the spirit, is the instrument of them. It is not the ear which hears but the spirit of man which hears through the ears. . . . To the extent, therefore, that the body serves as a tool and instrument of the spirit, it exhibits a certain resemblance to and gives us some notion of the way in which God is busy in the world.'' - Bavinck
- A question I find intriguing question is this; 'why do human beings have the particular bodies they have? To elaborate; why do we have the particular senses we have? Why do we experience the matter/energy universe in the way we do? Why is our hearing so acute? Why is our vision what it is? Why so many connections in the brain? Why is human memory so great? Why is our sense of music so exquisite? Why do we have such great creativity in music and in the arts? Why is human potential so great? Why do we look as we do? Why do we feel as we do? etc. etc.
- few people (even Christians) seem to ask these questions. (I think we see in this, the pernicious influence of Darwinism at work.)
- Bavinck seems to be saying that the human body (i.e. the way it works, its capacities, etc.) gives us a glimpse into the workings of God in the universe. What do I mean?
- I assume god has a purpose for giving man the faculties he has. (I think it was George Macdonald who said, if god wanted to see a play he would create a Shakespeare. If this has some validity, then God has created us for some purpose; has created our bodies the way they are for some purpose.
- Can it be that He wants to see through our eyes? hear through our ears? etc. But why the specifics of the human body? If we take the bible at its word I think the implication is obvious; the human body (at least at the time of the original creation, and before the Fall) is the best possible vehicle for this purpose.
- In other words; the human body was made perfect; a perfect vehicle for experiencing the universe; for experiencing the physical universe; the perfect vehicle for life in the material realm. (i.e. as the earth was the perfect planet, so man was the perfect body, the perfect vehicle for an intelligent Spirit to become incarnate in.)
- When I say the 'human' body was a 'perfect' vehicle I'm implying this was the opinion of God; or this was his view of the matter; at least for His purposes. Man then is the perfect 'fit' between the material universe and Spirit. [The 'Darwinian' answer, that all things that exist do so because they led to reproductive success, makes no sense to me. In no way can this adequately explain the specifics of the human body and the human person. Evolutionary theory can't account for the greatness of man; they can't account for his potential; it can't account for Mozart, Beethoven, etc.]
- it's not merely' that the universe was designed, or that man was designed; but that the 'fit' between them was designed. i.e. they were designed with this 'fit' in mind. The universe is what it is because of what man is; man is what he is because of what the universe it. And this 'fit'? It has the specific nature it has because of who God is, and because of what his plans for the universe are. (Specifically; this 'fit' has its specific nature or quality, because from the very beginning, from before the universe came into being, the Incarnation of one member of the Trinity was part of the Plan. Man is what he is, his 'body' is what it is, because God had determined that the human form was the most perfect way for God to experience the physical universe. i.e. the best vehicle for God to walk the earth, to experience material existence.
- I think I'm accurate in claiming that this is the view that Arthur Custance held; or at least close to it. (I'm sympathetic to it.)
- this is clearly speculative; but I think it's far closer to the truth than the Materialist view that man is who he is (has the body he has) simply by way of random chance and chemical accident.
Notes;
1. Arthur Custance; Journey out of Time/ch. 9/p.12
- the post above was just some thoughts I had on reading his chapter 'The interdependence of spirit and body: the biblical and theological view.'
2. 'Since man was designed for life on earth and appointed its "manager" (Genesis 1:26(56)), he naturally was equipped with a physical means of interaction with the material world.' - A. Custance
- I think it's accurate to say that man is what he is, his body is what 'it' is, because of man's appointed role on earth. (e.g. mathematics is an ability man has because of the command to take dominion over the earth; musical ability exists because of the command to glorify the Creator; and so on.)
3. ' In his discussion of the Judaic beliefs, Gundry [R.H.] observes that when we turn to Jewish literature of the Intertestamental and New Testament period, God is seen as making the body to suit the spirit which it contains "just as the potter suits a vessel to its intended contents." [Ch.9/p. 17]
- if this is true, the implication would seem to be that man's 'body' is what it is, because of who the Son [of God] is; ie. because who Jesus is. Can we say anything more specific? It would seem that man's body is as it is because of the nature of the work Jesus had to do in his incarnation, in his earthly life. (e.g. man is sensitive emotionally because Jesus had to be; logical because Jesus had to be; capable of love because Jesus needed to be; capable of courage because Jesus needed to be, etc. )
- one might object that this doesn't explain why human hearing is so great, or eyesight so great, or why man's musical or mathematical potential is so great. I can't think of an answer to this; so perhaps the above is only a partial answer to this question.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Sunday, December 7, 2008
The Existence of the Soul
Materialists (and this would include most evolutionists) deny the existence of the soul. They claim they've looked for it, but can't find it; and thus they 'regretfully' inform us that Christianity has been refuted. One of my favorite writers is Arthur Custance. He disagrees with the Materialist claim, and I agree with him. The following quotes are taken from his book 'Journey out of Time'.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'But as Paul Weiss rightly observed, the trouble may be that we have not yet designed the right kind of research tools or methods:
"Maybe our concept of our nervous system is equally inadequate and insufficient, because so long as you use only electrical instruments, you get only electrical answers; if you use chemical detectors, you get chemical answers; and if you determine numerical and geometric values, you get numerical and geometrical answers. So perhaps we have not yet found the particular kind of instrument that tells us the next unknown." (1.)
- Weiss wonders if the reason we haven't detected the soul is that we haven't developed the right instruments; i.e. instruments capable of detecting it. Maybe, but maybe we have 'instruments' that reveal the existence of the soul; maybe things like literature, poetry, art and music, are the things that reveal to us the human soul. (i.e. we don't look for chemicals, electricity, etc. but we look for reason, language, creativity, beauty, music, etc.)
- in other words, 'War and Peace' can't be written by chemicals obeying chemical laws. If a creature is capable of great art it thus reveals to us evidence of having a soul.
- a problem might be defining the soul. The word soul seems to stand for what is supra-animal in man; ie. his specifically human abilities. (e.g. his consciousness, self-consciousness, consciousness of others, his ability to think, imagine, reason, his abilities to be creative, his abilities to use language, his abilities to use mathematics, etc.)
- soul isn't so much an object, than it is a complex of abilities.
Notes;
1. Arthur Custance; Journey out of Time - Arthur Custance/ch. 8/p.2 [Free online]
2. some people might object and say birds have music, so this either proves birds have souls, or that men do not. I deny the birds (animals) have music. There is no meaningful relationship or connection between a genetically given 'signal' system and music. (I'm listening to 'The well tempered clavier' by Bach as I write this.) Music is a difficult thing to write about, but we all recognize the difference between the mechanical chirping of birds and great music.
3. Some people might object to my proposal and say that many animals have beauty. So they do; but they don't create beauty, they are beautiful. This is akin to the difference between a beautiful young woman, and a painting of a beautiful young woman. The one isn't art, while the other is. Only the human soul can consciously and freely create beauty. Created beauty is thus evidence of the soul.
4. We might say that the soul can do what mere matter in motion cannot.
5. ''It is seemingly impossible to quantify human behavior. Thus psychology is doomed to remain an art of
uncertain value so long as it depends upon introspection and observation only. There are no instruments yet
designed to quantify the almost infinite variety and complexity of response of which the human psyche is
capable. While the behavior of the body is often highly predictable (and so encourages "mechanistic" interpretations), the response of the human soul very seldom is . . . which suggests it is not operating as a mechanism and therefore almost certainly does not arise as an outgrowth of pure mechanism in the first place.'' [A.C. ch. 8. page 2; the intro to the Weiss quote.]
Quotes and comments;
1. 'But as Paul Weiss rightly observed, the trouble may be that we have not yet designed the right kind of research tools or methods:
"Maybe our concept of our nervous system is equally inadequate and insufficient, because so long as you use only electrical instruments, you get only electrical answers; if you use chemical detectors, you get chemical answers; and if you determine numerical and geometric values, you get numerical and geometrical answers. So perhaps we have not yet found the particular kind of instrument that tells us the next unknown." (1.)
- Weiss wonders if the reason we haven't detected the soul is that we haven't developed the right instruments; i.e. instruments capable of detecting it. Maybe, but maybe we have 'instruments' that reveal the existence of the soul; maybe things like literature, poetry, art and music, are the things that reveal to us the human soul. (i.e. we don't look for chemicals, electricity, etc. but we look for reason, language, creativity, beauty, music, etc.)
- in other words, 'War and Peace' can't be written by chemicals obeying chemical laws. If a creature is capable of great art it thus reveals to us evidence of having a soul.
- a problem might be defining the soul. The word soul seems to stand for what is supra-animal in man; ie. his specifically human abilities. (e.g. his consciousness, self-consciousness, consciousness of others, his ability to think, imagine, reason, his abilities to be creative, his abilities to use language, his abilities to use mathematics, etc.)
- soul isn't so much an object, than it is a complex of abilities.
Notes;
1. Arthur Custance; Journey out of Time - Arthur Custance/ch. 8/p.2 [Free online]
2. some people might object and say birds have music, so this either proves birds have souls, or that men do not. I deny the birds (animals) have music. There is no meaningful relationship or connection between a genetically given 'signal' system and music. (I'm listening to 'The well tempered clavier' by Bach as I write this.) Music is a difficult thing to write about, but we all recognize the difference between the mechanical chirping of birds and great music.
3. Some people might object to my proposal and say that many animals have beauty. So they do; but they don't create beauty, they are beautiful. This is akin to the difference between a beautiful young woman, and a painting of a beautiful young woman. The one isn't art, while the other is. Only the human soul can consciously and freely create beauty. Created beauty is thus evidence of the soul.
4. We might say that the soul can do what mere matter in motion cannot.
5. ''It is seemingly impossible to quantify human behavior. Thus psychology is doomed to remain an art of
uncertain value so long as it depends upon introspection and observation only. There are no instruments yet
designed to quantify the almost infinite variety and complexity of response of which the human psyche is
capable. While the behavior of the body is often highly predictable (and so encourages "mechanistic" interpretations), the response of the human soul very seldom is . . . which suggests it is not operating as a mechanism and therefore almost certainly does not arise as an outgrowth of pure mechanism in the first place.'' [A.C. ch. 8. page 2; the intro to the Weiss quote.]
Monday, December 1, 2008
Darwinism and the Invention of Delusion
In this post I'll try (briefly) to make the case Darwinism is based on the argument from silence fallacy. To do so I'll look at a few comments made by Gines Morata (a research scientist from Spain).
Quotes and comments;
1. " I often tell my students that they do not have to invent anything; in biology everything has already been invented. What they have to do is find out the solution chosen by evolution.
2. 'In the context of this statement, Morata was talking about his enjoyment of science as a kind of detective work. “The interesting aspect of it is that biological solutions are unpredictable and often very inelegant; there is a lot of tinkering in biology,” he asserted. “This is because there is no design, only chance and necessity.” As examples, he pointed to “useless” DNA, introns and genetic subdivisions that do not appear associated with morphological landmarks. (1.)
- Morata is a prime example of evolutionists developing idea based on ignorance; i.e. the so called argument from silence. i.e. evolutionists base their theory of origins on the little they know (or think they know) since they (we) know so very little the theory can't possibly be right; and is certain to be wrong. (This is like basing your idea of ancient sea travel on the wrecks you find; since (up till recently) you only found them in shallow water it was considered wisdom to say in ancient times men only sailed along the coastlines and never across open bodies of deep water. We now find this is utterly untrue. Evolutionists are in the same boat; they developed their theories (sub theories within E. theory) based on a similar ignorance. We are now finding out (repeatedly) that these theories are wrong. It's my view that the grand evolutionary theory (macro-evolution) is similarly an argument from silence.
Notes;
1. Reference; Evolution as Inventor Creation/Evolution headlines 12/05/2006
2. Morata is guilty of personification when he talks about nature 'inventing' things. Only intelligent persons invent things. (I don't consider monkeys using sticks inventing things; they certainly don't invent sticks :=)
3. evolution isn't a person (one gets weary of saying these things.) The fact evolutionists so often commit these errors shows how wrong headed their thinking is. (It often seems to me, that false ideas lead to fallacious grammar.)
- 'evolution' doesn't choose anything; certainly not solutions.
4. one wonders on what basis he decides the 'solutions' of nature aren't inelegant? which of his (selfish) genes is making this judgment?
5. one wonders how he knows there is no design; and which of his genes is responsible for this conclusion? and on what basis?
- evolutionists who follow Dawkins are endlessly (or so it seems) telling us we're just collections of selfish genes, that don't have us in mind, who use us for their own purposes... but when they sit down to write they seem to totally forget all this priceless knowledge. Why is it then that they don't write in a manner consistent with what they claim to believe? The simple answer is that they can't. To try to do so leads to incoherence and absurdity. (If you doubt me; try it.)
6. How does morata know what is 'useless' as he puts it? He doesn't; he's just using (again) an argument from silence. ie. since I can't see any use for X, there isn't one. This is one of the worst, and most common, mistakes made by evolutionists. (Over and over it's shown to be wrong.)
- one would like to know which of his genes is telling him this.
7. Since nature has supposedly invented everything, I wonder if it invented Darwinism :=) Did it invent soccer? Pop music? Tiddly winks?
Quotes and comments;
1. " I often tell my students that they do not have to invent anything; in biology everything has already been invented. What they have to do is find out the solution chosen by evolution.
2. 'In the context of this statement, Morata was talking about his enjoyment of science as a kind of detective work. “The interesting aspect of it is that biological solutions are unpredictable and often very inelegant; there is a lot of tinkering in biology,” he asserted. “This is because there is no design, only chance and necessity.” As examples, he pointed to “useless” DNA, introns and genetic subdivisions that do not appear associated with morphological landmarks. (1.)
- Morata is a prime example of evolutionists developing idea based on ignorance; i.e. the so called argument from silence. i.e. evolutionists base their theory of origins on the little they know (or think they know) since they (we) know so very little the theory can't possibly be right; and is certain to be wrong. (This is like basing your idea of ancient sea travel on the wrecks you find; since (up till recently) you only found them in shallow water it was considered wisdom to say in ancient times men only sailed along the coastlines and never across open bodies of deep water. We now find this is utterly untrue. Evolutionists are in the same boat; they developed their theories (sub theories within E. theory) based on a similar ignorance. We are now finding out (repeatedly) that these theories are wrong. It's my view that the grand evolutionary theory (macro-evolution) is similarly an argument from silence.
Notes;
1. Reference; Evolution as Inventor Creation/Evolution headlines 12/05/2006
2. Morata is guilty of personification when he talks about nature 'inventing' things. Only intelligent persons invent things. (I don't consider monkeys using sticks inventing things; they certainly don't invent sticks :=)
3. evolution isn't a person (one gets weary of saying these things.) The fact evolutionists so often commit these errors shows how wrong headed their thinking is. (It often seems to me, that false ideas lead to fallacious grammar.)
- 'evolution' doesn't choose anything; certainly not solutions.
4. one wonders on what basis he decides the 'solutions' of nature aren't inelegant? which of his (selfish) genes is making this judgment?
5. one wonders how he knows there is no design; and which of his genes is responsible for this conclusion? and on what basis?
- evolutionists who follow Dawkins are endlessly (or so it seems) telling us we're just collections of selfish genes, that don't have us in mind, who use us for their own purposes... but when they sit down to write they seem to totally forget all this priceless knowledge. Why is it then that they don't write in a manner consistent with what they claim to believe? The simple answer is that they can't. To try to do so leads to incoherence and absurdity. (If you doubt me; try it.)
6. How does morata know what is 'useless' as he puts it? He doesn't; he's just using (again) an argument from silence. ie. since I can't see any use for X, there isn't one. This is one of the worst, and most common, mistakes made by evolutionists. (Over and over it's shown to be wrong.)
- one would like to know which of his genes is telling him this.
7. Since nature has supposedly invented everything, I wonder if it invented Darwinism :=) Did it invent soccer? Pop music? Tiddly winks?
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
The Flying Spaghetti Monster gets shot down
Many atheists in our day have taken to ridiculing the idea of a creator God, by way of inventing some very silly (fallacious) analogies. The most popular of these is probably the so called Flying Spaghetti Monster. (FSM) We're told this being created the world. People who doubt this are told to disprove it. "Since you can't disprove it, it must be real,'' we're told.
- the idea is that god is no more real than the FSM.
I'm astounded anyone thinks this is a good argument, or a meaningful analogy. The analogy has a fatal flaw; namely that hundreds of millions of people believe in God, while not a single person believes in the FSM. How anyone can think this is a good argument against theism I have no idea.
Why do people believe in a Creator? They do so on the basis of evidence and intuition. (No one believes in the FSM on the basis of evidence and intuition.) We also need to remember that atheists believe in a Materialist worldview on the basis of intuition. You can't strictly disprove either materialism or creation.
- If materialists want to deny the value of the theist's intuition (of God), they've at the same time, denied the value of their own intuition (that there is no God).
Notes;
1. There are many reasons this is a false analogy; for instance (as others have pointed out) Christians don't believe in God because His existence can't be disproved!
- e.g. Fearing the Spaghetti Monster - by Rachel Tullock
2. It's only intellectual buffoons like Dawkins who take these silly analogies seriously. No serious philosopher that I know of does.
- the idea is that god is no more real than the FSM.
I'm astounded anyone thinks this is a good argument, or a meaningful analogy. The analogy has a fatal flaw; namely that hundreds of millions of people believe in God, while not a single person believes in the FSM. How anyone can think this is a good argument against theism I have no idea.
Why do people believe in a Creator? They do so on the basis of evidence and intuition. (No one believes in the FSM on the basis of evidence and intuition.) We also need to remember that atheists believe in a Materialist worldview on the basis of intuition. You can't strictly disprove either materialism or creation.
- If materialists want to deny the value of the theist's intuition (of God), they've at the same time, denied the value of their own intuition (that there is no God).
Notes;
1. There are many reasons this is a false analogy; for instance (as others have pointed out) Christians don't believe in God because His existence can't be disproved!
- e.g. Fearing the Spaghetti Monster - by Rachel Tullock
2. It's only intellectual buffoons like Dawkins who take these silly analogies seriously. No serious philosopher that I know of does.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Design as a tool in scientific thinking
Intelligent design as a tool in scientific thinking
Evolutionists often say to creationists; 'well how then do you do science if you're a creationist? How can you use ID to do science? Give us an example. In this post I'll try to do this. (Though I admit to not being a scientist.) I'll look at the subject of dreams. The brief answer of how you use the concept of design to do science is that, put simply, you look for non-Darwinian explanations for discoveries made by researchers. I'll compare how the Darwinist storyteller looks for an explanation of some dreaming aspect - and how an ID exponent can give an alternative explanation.
- I'm always annoyed by the fact that in most 'science' done today no only Darwinian biological explanations are considered. I consider this a bad way to think, a bad way to do science. If the basic assumption is wrong, all the this stuff is fallacious, almost a complete waste of time. The insistence that only evolutionary accounts need be considered, leads to ignoring other accounts that are far more reasonable.
Let's take a look at how one might do this. I'll use a couple examples from the decidedly Darwinian book 'The mind at Night' by Andrea Block. (A book about the dreaming mind.) In it we see Darwinian speculation run amuck.
Quotes and comments
1. 'Nonetheless, dreaming's roots in that basic animal model can be seen in the worldwide human propensity to have frequent dreams of being chased or confronting other frightening situations, according to Antti Revonsuo, a cognitive neuroscientist at the University of Turku in Finland.' (p/72)
- Have these people never seen children at play? Children are forever running; chasing each other, and being chased. Isn't this a more likely explanation? People, and especially children, are commonly chased by dogs, or get afraid that barking dogs will chase them. Literature is full of chase scenes, and this is especially true of movies and tv. (There are the 'chases' of war; there are all the cases of parents chasing children, trying to catch them, to give them a smack, or drag them into the house; etc. We need not go begging to Darwin to explain chases.
2. 'But how could mere mental rehearsal of survival skills be effective in improving those skills if they are just imagined, not physically carried out? The answer is that the brain is fooled into believing that its motor commands in dream plots actually have been followed. For instance, when we are being chased by a tiger or a threatening stranger in a dream and our brain issues the command to run or climb a tree to safety, the unique physiological conditions that prevail during sleep paralyze our muscles, preventing us from carrying out the command, but the brain nonetheless produces the experience of movement by sending copies of those motor commands to our sensory systems. (p/72)
- Let's see now; this would mean (since it's so undeniably true) that people who are good at flying dreams would be able to fly... or at the very least, be able to fly better than people who aren't good at flying dreams, or who don't have flying dreams at all. Gee; I wonder if anyone's studied this. I wonder if I could get a grant to study it :=)
- and what of all those dreams where the person just freezes and can't run? or the dreams where people wake up before getting caught?
- gee; wouldn't it be kind of confusing to proto man's small, evolving brain to imagine he's running when he isn't running :=)
3. "Dreamed action is experientially and neurophysiologically real," says Revonsuo. (He's talking about how dreaming about escaping a tiger by climbing a tree could help 'wire' the brain in some advantageous way.)
- climbing a tree in a dream won't help you climb one in real life. Being able to climb a tree is a skill one has to learn in the real world. (Apparently our professor hasn't climbed many trees :=)
- climbing a tree takes strength and agility, and just dreaming about climbing won't increase your strength one iota.
- let's not forget that the trees in dreams aren't real trees; and if one hasn't ever climbed a tree the 'climbing' a person does in his dreams isn't anything approaching real tree climbing.
- climbing a tree in a dream wouldn't help one do anything in real life; this is nonsense.
4. 'First, consider what is notably absent from our dreams. Studies conducted by Ernest Hartmann, a dream researcher at Tufts University, have shown that in adult dreams, walking, talking to friends, and
having sex were represented in dreams about as often as in real life, but reading, writing, and arithmetic rarely if ever appear, even though the dreamers in the study typically spent six hours daily engaged in
activities that fall into the three R's category. Revonsuo suggests these parts of waking life aren't reflected in most dreams because they are cultural latecomers.' - (p/74)
- you sometimes wonder if people read what they write! Block has told us repeatedly that 'tests' are a very common dream; e.g. being in a room being tested on a subject one hasn't studied and the like. (Did she forget having written that?)
- if this theory were true there would be none of these kinds (i.e. 'literate) of dreams. (I've had lots of dreams about books; reading titles off of books, being in libraries and bookstores; reading out of books.)
- a far more reasonable explanation (with unfortunately isn't nearly as exciting as these Darwinian fables) is that reading and writing aren't activities that are dangerous or anxiety ridden. i.e. they don't produce great emotions; they aren't powerfully emotional activities; and that this is why they aren't featured often in our dreams.
5. Speculations
- I think it's best to start with the idea there different kinds of dreams, and that these dreams have different purposes.
- it might be helpful to see the 'mind at night' as fulfilling purposes similar to a computer maintenance program. (e.g. defragging, system checks, error checks, compression, back up snapshots, etc.)
- I wonder if the 'mind at night' doesn't do the work of an internal monitor; checking up not only on the brain, but on the whole body; and perhaps using dreams to report on 'problems' it finds. (e.g. I once had a dream of a tooth breaking a few weeks before it happened for real.)
- as a creationist I think it's likely that the 'dreaming mind' has suffered some damage since mankind was first created; and I wonder what a more perfect dreaming mind would be like. (Perhaps in very 'hallucinagenic' dreams we see evidence of malfunction.)
Notes;
1. The mind at night - Andrea Block
2. Unfortunately; almost all the 'analysis' in this book is based on the belief the speculations of Darwin are correct. (If evolutionary theory is false, as I'm certain it is, then all of this analysis is wrong, utterly false, and worthless. But heh, it's real science, and that's all that matters. It doesn't matter if these 'ideas' are correct, but only that they're 'scientific'.
- over and over in the book people talk as if they could know about dreams hundreds of millions of years ago. Maybe they have some fossilized dreams they can show us.)
Evolutionists often say to creationists; 'well how then do you do science if you're a creationist? How can you use ID to do science? Give us an example. In this post I'll try to do this. (Though I admit to not being a scientist.) I'll look at the subject of dreams. The brief answer of how you use the concept of design to do science is that, put simply, you look for non-Darwinian explanations for discoveries made by researchers. I'll compare how the Darwinist storyteller looks for an explanation of some dreaming aspect - and how an ID exponent can give an alternative explanation.
- I'm always annoyed by the fact that in most 'science' done today no only Darwinian biological explanations are considered. I consider this a bad way to think, a bad way to do science. If the basic assumption is wrong, all the this stuff is fallacious, almost a complete waste of time. The insistence that only evolutionary accounts need be considered, leads to ignoring other accounts that are far more reasonable.
Let's take a look at how one might do this. I'll use a couple examples from the decidedly Darwinian book 'The mind at Night' by Andrea Block. (A book about the dreaming mind.) In it we see Darwinian speculation run amuck.
Quotes and comments
1. 'Nonetheless, dreaming's roots in that basic animal model can be seen in the worldwide human propensity to have frequent dreams of being chased or confronting other frightening situations, according to Antti Revonsuo, a cognitive neuroscientist at the University of Turku in Finland.' (p/72)
- Have these people never seen children at play? Children are forever running; chasing each other, and being chased. Isn't this a more likely explanation? People, and especially children, are commonly chased by dogs, or get afraid that barking dogs will chase them. Literature is full of chase scenes, and this is especially true of movies and tv. (There are the 'chases' of war; there are all the cases of parents chasing children, trying to catch them, to give them a smack, or drag them into the house; etc. We need not go begging to Darwin to explain chases.
2. 'But how could mere mental rehearsal of survival skills be effective in improving those skills if they are just imagined, not physically carried out? The answer is that the brain is fooled into believing that its motor commands in dream plots actually have been followed. For instance, when we are being chased by a tiger or a threatening stranger in a dream and our brain issues the command to run or climb a tree to safety, the unique physiological conditions that prevail during sleep paralyze our muscles, preventing us from carrying out the command, but the brain nonetheless produces the experience of movement by sending copies of those motor commands to our sensory systems. (p/72)
- Let's see now; this would mean (since it's so undeniably true) that people who are good at flying dreams would be able to fly... or at the very least, be able to fly better than people who aren't good at flying dreams, or who don't have flying dreams at all. Gee; I wonder if anyone's studied this. I wonder if I could get a grant to study it :=)
- and what of all those dreams where the person just freezes and can't run? or the dreams where people wake up before getting caught?
- gee; wouldn't it be kind of confusing to proto man's small, evolving brain to imagine he's running when he isn't running :=)
3. "Dreamed action is experientially and neurophysiologically real," says Revonsuo. (He's talking about how dreaming about escaping a tiger by climbing a tree could help 'wire' the brain in some advantageous way.)
- climbing a tree in a dream won't help you climb one in real life. Being able to climb a tree is a skill one has to learn in the real world. (Apparently our professor hasn't climbed many trees :=)
- climbing a tree takes strength and agility, and just dreaming about climbing won't increase your strength one iota.
- let's not forget that the trees in dreams aren't real trees; and if one hasn't ever climbed a tree the 'climbing' a person does in his dreams isn't anything approaching real tree climbing.
- climbing a tree in a dream wouldn't help one do anything in real life; this is nonsense.
4. 'First, consider what is notably absent from our dreams. Studies conducted by Ernest Hartmann, a dream researcher at Tufts University, have shown that in adult dreams, walking, talking to friends, and
having sex were represented in dreams about as often as in real life, but reading, writing, and arithmetic rarely if ever appear, even though the dreamers in the study typically spent six hours daily engaged in
activities that fall into the three R's category. Revonsuo suggests these parts of waking life aren't reflected in most dreams because they are cultural latecomers.' - (p/74)
- you sometimes wonder if people read what they write! Block has told us repeatedly that 'tests' are a very common dream; e.g. being in a room being tested on a subject one hasn't studied and the like. (Did she forget having written that?)
- if this theory were true there would be none of these kinds (i.e. 'literate) of dreams. (I've had lots of dreams about books; reading titles off of books, being in libraries and bookstores; reading out of books.)
- a far more reasonable explanation (with unfortunately isn't nearly as exciting as these Darwinian fables) is that reading and writing aren't activities that are dangerous or anxiety ridden. i.e. they don't produce great emotions; they aren't powerfully emotional activities; and that this is why they aren't featured often in our dreams.
5. Speculations
- I think it's best to start with the idea there different kinds of dreams, and that these dreams have different purposes.
- it might be helpful to see the 'mind at night' as fulfilling purposes similar to a computer maintenance program. (e.g. defragging, system checks, error checks, compression, back up snapshots, etc.)
- I wonder if the 'mind at night' doesn't do the work of an internal monitor; checking up not only on the brain, but on the whole body; and perhaps using dreams to report on 'problems' it finds. (e.g. I once had a dream of a tooth breaking a few weeks before it happened for real.)
- as a creationist I think it's likely that the 'dreaming mind' has suffered some damage since mankind was first created; and I wonder what a more perfect dreaming mind would be like. (Perhaps in very 'hallucinagenic' dreams we see evidence of malfunction.)
Notes;
1. The mind at night - Andrea Block
2. Unfortunately; almost all the 'analysis' in this book is based on the belief the speculations of Darwin are correct. (If evolutionary theory is false, as I'm certain it is, then all of this analysis is wrong, utterly false, and worthless. But heh, it's real science, and that's all that matters. It doesn't matter if these 'ideas' are correct, but only that they're 'scientific'.
- over and over in the book people talk as if they could know about dreams hundreds of millions of years ago. Maybe they have some fossilized dreams they can show us.)
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Creation vs. the mythology of hate crimes
Contra hate crimes (9/30/08)
In the morning rag we see yet another call that so called 'hate crimes' be punished more severely than 'ordinary' crimes. (Which according to the mythology aren't hate based.) I consider this a joke; as these are the same people who continually affirm relativism, and who deny that moral absolutes exist, or even that truth exists. (These things only exist when certain 'advocates' want them to I guess.)
Quotes and comments;
1. "Vancouver police have recommended that the case be prosecuted as a hate crime, said Const. Tim Fanning. The Criminal Code of Canada gives the courts the authority to impose heavier sentences if there's evidence the crime was motivated by hate based on such things as race, religion or sexual orientation." (A homosexual was assaulted; supposedly for holding hands with another male.)
- while I don't deny that certain crimes are motivated by hate; the current mythology of hate crimes depends on who gets to define a hate crime. This is the crux of the controversy. Many crimes that I would consider 'hate crimes' are never called hate crimes; e.g. burning down churches. (Because so many of these church arsonists are homosexuals? Because the political Left hates Christians?)
- social workers stealing children who have been spanked, or sending their parents to jail, can be seen as a hate crime, attacks on homeschooling, on Christian schools, and on and on.
- hate crime legislation is just the radical Left taking care of its own; and exacting revenge on groups it doesn't like.
- in the USSR (where our pols get most of their ideas) there were all kinds of hate crimes; i.e. anything said about the ruling elite or anything the state did. To protest slave labor camps was a hate crime; to denounce communism was a hate crime, etc.
- so called 'hate crimes' depend on reading men's minds. (Pretty strange for a so called scientific age.) This is nothing but witchcraft... pretending judges have supernatural powers. Once you let judges (etc.) read people's minds you have lost all liberty... at least potentially. Again this was done in the Soviet Union; where gov. pols attributed all kinds of criminal motivations to commonplace behavior. Law must deal with behavior only; it cannot enter the realm of psychology and motivation and thoughts. This leads to the nightmare world of the totalitarian state.
- When a child is seduced, molested or raped by a homosexual, is it ever called a hate crime? In my experience this never happens, (although it's the worst hate crime there is.)
- So how is the subject of creation relevant to this story? The fact man was created by God, and was made in God's image is basic to all of life; and the subject of crime is no different. The only standard for law is God's holy character. It is only God who can provide man with absolute moral truth. Once human beings stray from God's law (revealed in the Bible) they run into endless errors. Both hatred and crime must be defined by God. Since all things belong to God, man himself belongs to God, and has a duty to obey his creator.
- it's easy to see how absurd this is; just imagine if the 'Right' were allowed to have exclusive right to define hate crimes! (Or some other group hated by the secular, socialist Left.)
- the idea of 'hate crimes' is intellectual and philosophical buffoonery.
Notes;
1. Source; Vancouver Sun; "Vancouver police have recommended that the case be prosecuted as a hate crime, said Const. Tim Fanning. The Criminal Code of Canada gives the courts the authority to impose heavier sentences if there's evidence the crime was motivated by hate based on such things as race, religion or sexual orientation.'
2. "It is a repulsive crime when people are attacked because of their colour, religion or sexual preference," Fanning said in an e-mail. "It is a crime committed out of ignorance and will never be tolerated."
3. I in no way condone the beating that went on here; we have laws against beating people up, and that's all that's needed. (In terms of christian theology, to simplify; law deals with outward behavior, and sin deals with what we might call inward behavior; with thoughts, feelings, motivations. e.g. murder is against the law, but rage is sin; adultery is against the law, but lust is sin. etc.)
4. "They that hate me love death.'' (i.e. says God)
In the morning rag we see yet another call that so called 'hate crimes' be punished more severely than 'ordinary' crimes. (Which according to the mythology aren't hate based.) I consider this a joke; as these are the same people who continually affirm relativism, and who deny that moral absolutes exist, or even that truth exists. (These things only exist when certain 'advocates' want them to I guess.)
Quotes and comments;
1. "Vancouver police have recommended that the case be prosecuted as a hate crime, said Const. Tim Fanning. The Criminal Code of Canada gives the courts the authority to impose heavier sentences if there's evidence the crime was motivated by hate based on such things as race, religion or sexual orientation." (A homosexual was assaulted; supposedly for holding hands with another male.)
- while I don't deny that certain crimes are motivated by hate; the current mythology of hate crimes depends on who gets to define a hate crime. This is the crux of the controversy. Many crimes that I would consider 'hate crimes' are never called hate crimes; e.g. burning down churches. (Because so many of these church arsonists are homosexuals? Because the political Left hates Christians?)
- social workers stealing children who have been spanked, or sending their parents to jail, can be seen as a hate crime, attacks on homeschooling, on Christian schools, and on and on.
- hate crime legislation is just the radical Left taking care of its own; and exacting revenge on groups it doesn't like.
- in the USSR (where our pols get most of their ideas) there were all kinds of hate crimes; i.e. anything said about the ruling elite or anything the state did. To protest slave labor camps was a hate crime; to denounce communism was a hate crime, etc.
- so called 'hate crimes' depend on reading men's minds. (Pretty strange for a so called scientific age.) This is nothing but witchcraft... pretending judges have supernatural powers. Once you let judges (etc.) read people's minds you have lost all liberty... at least potentially. Again this was done in the Soviet Union; where gov. pols attributed all kinds of criminal motivations to commonplace behavior. Law must deal with behavior only; it cannot enter the realm of psychology and motivation and thoughts. This leads to the nightmare world of the totalitarian state.
- When a child is seduced, molested or raped by a homosexual, is it ever called a hate crime? In my experience this never happens, (although it's the worst hate crime there is.)
- So how is the subject of creation relevant to this story? The fact man was created by God, and was made in God's image is basic to all of life; and the subject of crime is no different. The only standard for law is God's holy character. It is only God who can provide man with absolute moral truth. Once human beings stray from God's law (revealed in the Bible) they run into endless errors. Both hatred and crime must be defined by God. Since all things belong to God, man himself belongs to God, and has a duty to obey his creator.
- it's easy to see how absurd this is; just imagine if the 'Right' were allowed to have exclusive right to define hate crimes! (Or some other group hated by the secular, socialist Left.)
- the idea of 'hate crimes' is intellectual and philosophical buffoonery.
Notes;
1. Source; Vancouver Sun; "Vancouver police have recommended that the case be prosecuted as a hate crime, said Const. Tim Fanning. The Criminal Code of Canada gives the courts the authority to impose heavier sentences if there's evidence the crime was motivated by hate based on such things as race, religion or sexual orientation.'
2. "It is a repulsive crime when people are attacked because of their colour, religion or sexual preference," Fanning said in an e-mail. "It is a crime committed out of ignorance and will never be tolerated."
3. I in no way condone the beating that went on here; we have laws against beating people up, and that's all that's needed. (In terms of christian theology, to simplify; law deals with outward behavior, and sin deals with what we might call inward behavior; with thoughts, feelings, motivations. e.g. murder is against the law, but rage is sin; adultery is against the law, but lust is sin. etc.)
4. "They that hate me love death.'' (i.e. says God)
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
The Pretense of Materialism
I've long agreed with philosophers who claim that Materialism is a fallacious theory, and one that should be tossed on the scrap heap. To illustrate this point consider the following quotes.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'At an appearance at a local bookstore in Washington D.C., a visitor asked Dawkins whether it was consistent for him to believe in determinism and then take credit for writing his book. [The God Delusion] Access Research Network tells how Dawkins hemmed and hawed, and then conceded he had to live as if determinism is false, and society must treat people as if they are responsible for their actions. He admitted “it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable.” (1.)
- I've long been tired of responding to Dawkins; but I suppose one must point out the obvious flaw in his argument. He admits to being inconsistent (a major intellectual flaw surely) but on the other hand he castigates Christians for being inconsistent! This is a joke. You can't both absolve yourself of sin X and then attack others for it. Give me a break.
- Materialism is self-refuting. As it involves believing contradictory things it can't be lived out. Isn't that evidence Richard, that it's not true? One would think so.
- Who or what is this 'society' Richard, that supposedly governs us? I thought selfish genes were in control.
- Society isn't a person Richard. You claim to rely on 'reason' for all your wisdom and knowledge, but then you engage in gross errors like personifying society. That's a logical fallacy (as I assume you know) and therefore does not qualify as reason.
- To pretend a is non-a is also a logical fallacy; and thus not reason; i.e. it's fallacious reasoning. To pretend man is free when he is not sounds a lot like religion to me; and false religion at that.
- to treat people as responsible when they're not is also a logical fallacy; unreason on stilts. This too smacks of the religion you say you hate. In fact you don't hate religion, you hate Christianity. This make-believe nonsense of pretending x is really y is religion of an idiot sort; a religion for people who don't want to face the truth of creation.
- Dawkins is continually chiding Christians for not being consistent (e.g. if they believe in heaven why don't they want to die? etc.) but yet he admits to being wildly inconsistent himself. No honest person can take such hypocricy seriously.
- Dawkins pillories c's for many various reasons; the joke is that he's engaging in moralism... when he has No basis for doing so. This is intellectual charlatanism. If his model of reality were correct there would be no moral truths, no moral realities; there couldn't be. The man has no right to give a moral critique of anything... but yet he writes voluminously on the subject. Are we supposed to belive he's so clueless he doesn't see the problem? Of course he does; he just pretends he doesn't see a problem. (eg. how can he write a book and make a lot of money, if he doesn't pretend there's no problem?) I'm sorry; this is nothing but a farce.
- Dawkins is all about pretense; his entire argument against 'religion' depends on a definition of religion that he hand picks to be favorable to his case. In my opinion his definition (religion is a belief in a supreme being) is meaningless. I think the word religion itself is bogus; or has become so in recent decades. A much better term (certainly if our aim is to communicate) is world view. (But maybe Dawkins has no desire to communicate.) If we take his book and replace the word religion with world view it would make no sense. The reason for this is simple; his argument is dishonest... and thus makes no sense. He likes to ignore the fact the communists (Marxists, Maoists, etc.) murdered approximately 200 million people in the 20th century alone. Why? Because of their world view beliefs.
- More pretense? Dawkins claims men are slaves of selfish genes, who manipulate them (in all ways, even in their thoughts) for the sake of their own reproductive success. Having delivered himself of the strangest bit of metaphysics known to man, he then goes on to pretend that 'truth' exists, and that he knows what it is! Can the man not see the contradiction. If his nightmare scenario were true, there would be no truth; there could be no truth. But since Dawkins doesn't mind pretending, he pretends this isn't the case, he pretends truth exists... and that he has a patent on it. I can't begin to take such twaddle seriously.
Notes;
1. reference source; Darwinist Anti-Creation Tactics Increase in fervor (C/E Headlines; 2006)
Quotes and comments;
1. 'At an appearance at a local bookstore in Washington D.C., a visitor asked Dawkins whether it was consistent for him to believe in determinism and then take credit for writing his book. [The God Delusion] Access Research Network tells how Dawkins hemmed and hawed, and then conceded he had to live as if determinism is false, and society must treat people as if they are responsible for their actions. He admitted “it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable.” (1.)
- I've long been tired of responding to Dawkins; but I suppose one must point out the obvious flaw in his argument. He admits to being inconsistent (a major intellectual flaw surely) but on the other hand he castigates Christians for being inconsistent! This is a joke. You can't both absolve yourself of sin X and then attack others for it. Give me a break.
- Materialism is self-refuting. As it involves believing contradictory things it can't be lived out. Isn't that evidence Richard, that it's not true? One would think so.
- Who or what is this 'society' Richard, that supposedly governs us? I thought selfish genes were in control.
- Society isn't a person Richard. You claim to rely on 'reason' for all your wisdom and knowledge, but then you engage in gross errors like personifying society. That's a logical fallacy (as I assume you know) and therefore does not qualify as reason.
- To pretend a is non-a is also a logical fallacy; and thus not reason; i.e. it's fallacious reasoning. To pretend man is free when he is not sounds a lot like religion to me; and false religion at that.
- to treat people as responsible when they're not is also a logical fallacy; unreason on stilts. This too smacks of the religion you say you hate. In fact you don't hate religion, you hate Christianity. This make-believe nonsense of pretending x is really y is religion of an idiot sort; a religion for people who don't want to face the truth of creation.
- Dawkins is continually chiding Christians for not being consistent (e.g. if they believe in heaven why don't they want to die? etc.) but yet he admits to being wildly inconsistent himself. No honest person can take such hypocricy seriously.
- Dawkins pillories c's for many various reasons; the joke is that he's engaging in moralism... when he has No basis for doing so. This is intellectual charlatanism. If his model of reality were correct there would be no moral truths, no moral realities; there couldn't be. The man has no right to give a moral critique of anything... but yet he writes voluminously on the subject. Are we supposed to belive he's so clueless he doesn't see the problem? Of course he does; he just pretends he doesn't see a problem. (eg. how can he write a book and make a lot of money, if he doesn't pretend there's no problem?) I'm sorry; this is nothing but a farce.
- Dawkins is all about pretense; his entire argument against 'religion' depends on a definition of religion that he hand picks to be favorable to his case. In my opinion his definition (religion is a belief in a supreme being) is meaningless. I think the word religion itself is bogus; or has become so in recent decades. A much better term (certainly if our aim is to communicate) is world view. (But maybe Dawkins has no desire to communicate.) If we take his book and replace the word religion with world view it would make no sense. The reason for this is simple; his argument is dishonest... and thus makes no sense. He likes to ignore the fact the communists (Marxists, Maoists, etc.) murdered approximately 200 million people in the 20th century alone. Why? Because of their world view beliefs.
- More pretense? Dawkins claims men are slaves of selfish genes, who manipulate them (in all ways, even in their thoughts) for the sake of their own reproductive success. Having delivered himself of the strangest bit of metaphysics known to man, he then goes on to pretend that 'truth' exists, and that he knows what it is! Can the man not see the contradiction. If his nightmare scenario were true, there would be no truth; there could be no truth. But since Dawkins doesn't mind pretending, he pretends this isn't the case, he pretends truth exists... and that he has a patent on it. I can't begin to take such twaddle seriously.
Notes;
1. reference source; Darwinist Anti-Creation Tactics Increase in fervor (C/E Headlines; 2006)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
