|May 12, 2016||Posted by kairosfocus under Atheism, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, FYI-FTR, governance, Governance & control vs anarchy, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society||
As the ongoing exchange on watersheds and dual mutually polarised slippery slopes continues, 07 has been demanding: 07, 536: I am still waiting on my list of 10 self evident moral truths. If anyone else can help Phinehas out that would be appreciated! He now stands answered in the very next comment, which I headline: […]
FYI-FTR: On justice and rights as manifestly evident natural moral law principles (and the early modern era reform of governance)
|May 12, 2016||Posted by kairosfocus under Atheism, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, FYI-FTR, Governance & control vs anarchy, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society||
One of the themes that has come up in the ongoing exchanges on the perils of our civilisation (with homosexualisation of marriage under colour of law as a key case in point) is the issue of justice, rights and manifestly evident core principles of the natural moral law. Given current trends, this issue is well […]
|May 12, 2016||Posted by News under Culture, Darwinism, Ethics|
Richard Weikart’s radio debate with philosopher Peter Singer (infanticide supporter) and evolutionary psychologist Susan Blackmore He writes, “This debate came about because of my recent book, The Death of Humanity: And the Case for Life. Blackmore raises the issue of Darwinism to defend her position.” Here. See also: Darwin womb to tomb: Darwinism and abortion, […]
The perils of prolonged, march of folly-triggered crisis (of watersheds, slippery slopes and divide and ruin . . . )
|May 7, 2016||Posted by kairosfocus under Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Geo-strategic issues, governance, Governance & control vs anarchy, Politics/policy and origins issues, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society|
As I have pondered the current exchanges at UD and wider circumstances and trends with our civilisation, I have been reminded of the local prolonged volcano eruption triggered disaster and crisis that is now of over twenty years standing. Yesterday, I put up this visualisation of what I am thinking about — prolonged crisis with […]
FYI-FTR: Addressing ruthless radicalism (tied to evolutionary materialist scientism and radical secularism)
|May 5, 2016||Posted by kairosfocus under Darwinist rhetorical tactics, FYI-FTR, Geo-strategic issues, Governance & control vs anarchy, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society||
In recent days, WJM put up a post on the end or reasonable discussion that soon turned into sharp exchanges on hot-button issues, especially the homosexualisation of marriage. (For months there has been a lot of baiting in and around UD to pull us into a debate on such.) An underlying factor in such is […]
|May 3, 2016||Posted by Barry Arrington under Ethics, Intelligent Design, Naturalism|
UDEditors: WJM’s devastating rebuttal to Aleta’s materialism deserves its own post. Everything that follows is WJM’s: Aleta said: William, I know that your view is that unless morality is somehow grounded (purportedly) in some objective reality to which we have access, then it is merely subjective, and that then people have no reason not to […]
|April 19, 2016||Posted by kairosfocus under Atheism, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society|
While I am busy locally, I think it is important to discuss the issue as just headlined here at UD. Let me clip from the “Materialism makes you stupid” thread: >>27 CLAVDIVSApril 18, 2016 at 7:52 pm Design as a cause is compatible with materialism. Where’s the beef?>> and >>28 kairosfocusApril 19, 2016 at 5:14 […]
|April 17, 2016||Posted by News under Ethics, Naturalism, News|
From Adam Waytz at Nautilus: Once we abandon the idea of universal empathy, it becomes clear that we need to build a quantitative moral calculus to help us choose when to extend our empathy. Empathy, by its very nature, seems unquantifiable, but behavioral scientists have developed techniques to turn people’s vague instincts into hard numbers. […]
|April 8, 2016||Posted by News under Culture, Darwinism, Ethics, Evolution, News|
According to a Discovery Institute-sponsored poll: According to the survey, 43 percent of Americans now agree that “Evolution shows that no living thing is more important than any other,” and 45 percent of Americans believe that “Evolution shows that human beings are not fundamentally different from other animals.” The highest levels of support for the […]
|April 5, 2016||Posted by kairosfocus under Darwinist rhetorical tactics, News, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society||
This is just to illustrate a point in further reply to MT: To put things into perspective, let us put in Jesus and Mohammed: As further context, and bearing in mind that the band Google trusts the most is 1800 – 2000, broad-brush trends since 1500 may be seen by adding God and the Bible: […]
|March 4, 2016||Posted by DLH under academic freedom, Creationism, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Design inference, Intelligent Design, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society|
Evolutionist inquisition over Chinese scientists mentioning “Creator” force PLOSOne retraction.
|February 29, 2016||Posted by kairosfocus under FYI-FTR, Logic and First Principles of right reason, Mathematics, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society, Selective Hyperskepticism, Stirring the pot (tentative thoughts/explorations)||
Over the past month in response to a suggestion on an infinite temporal past (and the counter argument that such is dubious), there has been quite an exchange on numbers. In that context, it is worth headlining FYI/FTR, HT DS, a unification with continuum — oops, link — based on surreals discussed by Ehrlich: where […]
|February 26, 2016||Posted by DLH under Atheism, Big Bang, Books of interest, Cosmology, ID Foundations, Intelligent Design, Of General Interest, Origin Of Life, Philosophy, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society|
Criminologist and former atheist Mike Adams summarizes the three foundational philosophical alternatives to the Cosmos: First, we can say that it came into being spontaneously – in other words, that it came to be without a cause. Second, we can say that it has always been. Third, we can posit some cause outside the physical […]
Is Barker right (or at least in possession of responsibly justified belief) in his book title: “God: The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction”?
|February 13, 2016||Posted by kairosfocus under Atheism, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Science, Philosophy and (Natural) Theology, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society, Selective Hyperskepticism|
It seems atheist Dan Barker has built on a notorious remark by Mr Dawkins and has published a book bearing the title as headlined. The question immediately arises: is he right, or is he holding a responsibly justified belief even were it in error? A glance at the Amazon page for the book gives the […]
|January 31, 2016||Posted by kairosfocus under Atheism, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Mathematics, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society, Stirring the pot (tentative thoughts/explorations)|
In recent days, the issue of an infinite temporal past as a step by step causal succession has come up at UD. For, it seems the evolutionary materialist faces the unwelcome choice of a cosmos from a true nothing — non-being or else an actually completed infinite past succession of finite causal steps. Durston: >>To […]
In the current UD thread on Darwinism and an infinite past, there has been an exchange on Spitzer’s argument that it is impossible to traverse an infinite past to arrive at the present. Let me share and headline what is in effect the current state of play: DS, 108: >>KF, DS, ticking clocks meet dying […]
|January 14, 2016||Posted by kairosfocus under Atheism, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Fine tuning, Science, Philosophy and (Natural) Theology, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society|
Ran across this clip at Christian Post: Atheist author and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins says the best argument for God he’s ever hard has to do with a deistic God as the fine-tuner of the universe . . . . Dawkins prefaced his answer by making it clear that he is not “in any sense […]
|December 18, 2015||Posted by kairosfocus under Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, Origin Of Life, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society|
I ran across a vid of a proposal developed by Martin Marietta to explore Mars, towards settlement (and terraforming?): embedded by Embedded VideoYouTube Direkt What I find highly interesting is the motivations given. In addition to the Mars colonisation idea, there seems to be hope that finding “independent” life on Mars would show life must […]
|December 4, 2015||Posted by kairosfocus under academic freedom, Atheism, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Education, Politics/policy and origins issues, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society|
The core challenge being addressed (as we respond to abuse of a critical thinking curriculum) is the notion that belief in the reality of God is a culturally induced, poorly grounded commonplace notion. An easily dismissed cultural myth or prejudice, in short. Let us remind ourselves of the curriculum content used by teachers in a […]
|December 3, 2015||Posted by kairosfocus under academic freedom, Atheism, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, evolutionary materialism's self-falsification, Politics/policy and origins issues, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society||
In further addressing the curriculum abuse that sought to induce twelve year olds to imagine that belief in God is little more than a culturally induced ill-supported notion, it is critical to address the favoured ideology, evolutionary materialist scientism and/or its fellow travellers. For, never mind the lab coat clad magisterium, evolutionism is self-referentially incoherent […]
An excellent recent summary of this comes from Nancy Pearcey in her Finding Truth, let us refresh our memories — and remind the enthusiasts of evolutionary materialist scientism and fellow travellers/ enablers:
>>A major way to test a philosophy or worldview is to ask: Is it logically consistent? Internal contradictions are fatal to any worldview because contradictory statements are necessarily false. “This circle is square” is contradictory, so it has to be false. An especially damaging form of contradiction is self-referential absurdity — which means a theory sets up a definition of truth that it itself fails to meet. Therefore it refutes itself . . . . An example of self-referential absurdity is a theory called evolutionary epistemology, a naturalistic approach that applies evolution to the process of knowing. The theory proposes that the human mind is a product of natural selection. The implication is that the ideas in our minds were selected for their survival value, not for their truth-value.
But what if we apply that theory to itself? Then it, too, was selected for survival, not truth — which discredits its own claim to truth. Evolutionary epistemology commits suicide.
Astonishingly, many prominent thinkers have embraced the theory without detecting the logical contradiction. Philosopher John Gray writes, “If Darwin’s theory of natural selection is true,… the human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth.” What is the contradiction in that statement?
Gray has essentially said, if Darwin’s theory is true, then it “serves evolutionary success, not truth.” In other words, if Darwin’s theory is true, then it is not true.
Self-referential absurdity is akin to the well-known liar’s paradox: “This statement is a lie.” If the statement is true, then (as it says) it is not true, but a lie.
Another example comes from Francis Crick. In The Astonishing Hypothesis, he writes, “Our highly developed brains, after all, were not evolved under the pressure of discovering scientific truths but only to enable us to be clever enough to survive.” But that means Crick’s own theory is not a “scientific truth.” Applied to itself, the theory commits suicide.
Of course, the sheer pressure to survive is likely to produce some correct ideas. A zebra that thinks lions are friendly will not live long. But false ideas may be useful for survival. Evolutionists admit as much: Eric Baum says, “Sometimes you are more likely to survive and propagate if you believe a falsehood than if you believe the truth.” Steven Pinker writes, “Our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. Sometimes the truth is adaptive, but sometimes it is not.” The upshot is that survival is no guarantee of truth. If survival is the only standard, we can never know which ideas are true and which are adaptive but false.
To make the dilemma even more puzzling, evolutionists tell us that natural selection has produced all sorts of false concepts in the human mind. Many evolutionary materialists maintain that free will is an illusion, consciousness is an illusion, even our sense of self is an illusion — and that all these false ideas were selected for their survival value.
[–> that is, responsible, rational freedom is undermined. Cf here William Provine in his 1998 U Tenn Darwin Day keynote:
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent . . . .
The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them. Human free will, however, is another matter. Even evolutionists have trouble swallowing that implication. I will argue that humans are locally determined systems that make choices. They have, however, no free will [–> without responsible freedom, mind, reason and morality alike disintegrate into grand delusion, hence self-referential incoherence and self-refutation. But that does not make such fallacies any less effective in the hands of clever manipulators] . . . [1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address, U of Tenn — and yes, that is significant i/l/o the Scopes Trial, 1925]
So how can we know whether the theory of evolution itself is one of those false ideas? The theory undercuts itself.
A few thinkers, to their credit, recognize the problem. Literary critic Leon Wieseltier writes, “If reason is a product of natural selection, then how much confidence can we have in a rational argument for natural selection? … Evolutionary biology cannot invoke the power of reason even as it destroys it.”
On a similar note, philosopher Thomas Nagel asks, “Is the [evolutionary] hypothesis really compatible with the continued confidence in reason as a source of knowledge?” His answer is no: “I have to be able to believe … that I follow the rules of logic because they are correct — not merely because I am biologically programmed to do so.” Hence, “insofar as the evolutionary hypothesis itself depends on reason, it would be self-undermining.” [ENV excerpt, Finding Truth (David C. Cook, 2015) by Nancy Pearcey.]>>
No prizes for guessing why we will never see that in a critical thinking curriculum reader.
We might want to probe a tad more on how that self-undermining comes to be. Here on will help.
Famed evolutionary theorist J B S Haldane long since gave us a short summary, one suitable for memorisation and putting on the table to open up room for serious discussion:
“It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” [[“When I am dead,” in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays , Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209.]
This was tellingly, inadvertently echoed by Crick in his 1994 The Astonishing Hypothesis:
. . . that “You”, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased: “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.” This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing.
No wonder ID thinker Philip Johnson commented that Sir Francis should have therefore been willing to preface his works thusly: “I, Francis Crick, my opinions and my science, and even the thoughts expressed in this book, consist of nothing more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.” Johnson then acidly commented: “[[t]he plausibility of materialistic determinism requires that an implicit exception be made for the theorist.” [Reason in the Balance, 1995.]
Of course, such matters are strictly verboten, and will be militantly dismissed or distracted from. But that does not change their force: an evolutionary materialist account of mind and intellect is inherently self-defeating, self refuting and necessarily false.
This can be suppressed or brushed aside, and such is routinely done.
Indeed, Darwin is on record as trying to turn this around to deflect criticisms of his theory:
>>People are sometimes under the impression that Darwin himself recognized the problem. They typically cite Darwin’s famous “horrid doubt” passage where he questions whether the human mind can be trustworthy if it is a product of evolution: “With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy.”
But, of course, Darwin’s theory itself was a “conviction of man’s mind.” So why should it be “at all trustworthy”?
Surprisingly, however, Darwin never confronted this internal contradiction in this theory. Why not? Because he expressed his “horrid doubt” selectively — only when considering the case for a Creator.
From time to time, Darwin admitted that he still found the idea of God persuasive. He once confessed his “inward conviction … that the Universe is not the result of chance.” It was in the next sentence that he expressed his “horrid doubt.” So the “conviction” he mistrusted was his lingering conviction that the universe is not the result of chance.
In another passage Darwin admitted, “I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man.” Again, however, he immediately veered off into skepticism: “But then arises the doubt — can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions?”
That is, can it be trusted when it draws “grand conclusions” about a First Cause? Perhaps the concept of God is merely an instinct programmed into us by natural selection, Darwin added, like a monkey’s “instinctive fear and hatred of a snake.”
In short, it was on occasions when Darwin’s mind led him to a theistic conclusion that he dismissed the mind as untrustworthy. He failed to recognize that, to be logically consistent, he needed to apply the same skepticism to his own theory . . . .
Applied consistently, Darwinism undercuts not only itself but also the entire scientific enterprise. Kenan Malik, a writer trained in neurobiology, writes, “If our cognitive capacities were simply evolved dispositions, there would be no way of knowing which of these capacities lead to true beliefs and which to false ones.” Thus “to view humans as little more than sophisticated animals …undermines confidence in the scientific method.”
Just so. Science itself is at stake. John Lennox, professor of mathematics at the University of Oxford, writes that according to atheism, “the mind that does science … is the end product of a mindless unguided process. Now, if you knew your computer was the product of a mindless unguided process, you wouldn’t trust it. So, to me atheism undermines the rationality I need to do science.”
Of course, the atheist pursuing his research has no choice but to rely on rationality, just as everyone else does. The point is that he has no philosophical basis for doing so. Only those who affirm a rational Creator have a basis for trusting human rationality.
The reason so few atheists and materialists seem to recognize the problem is that, like Darwin, they apply their skepticism selectively . . .>>
It is much harder to actually answer.
Reppert’s analysis in terms of brain states may also be helpful, for those who are still puzzled as to what such arguments mean:
>>. . . let us suppose that brain state A, which is token identical to the thought that all men are mortal, and brain state B, which is token identical to the thought that Socrates is a man, together cause the belief that Socrates is mortal. It isn’t enough for rational inference that these events be those beliefs, it is also necessary that the causal transaction be in virtue of the content of those thoughts . . . [[But] if naturalism is true, then the propositional content is irrelevant to the causal transaction that produces the conclusion, and [[so] we do not have a case of rational inference. In rational inference, as Lewis puts it, one thought causes another thought not by being, but by being seen to be, the ground for it. But causal transactions in the brain occur in virtue of the brain’s being in a particular type of state that is relevant to physical causal transactions.>>
. . . especially if we bear in mind Smith’s two-tier controller cybernetic model of the brain-body loop and the potential impact of quantum level influences on brain action:
In short, despite pretence otherwise and dominance in institutions, curricula and media messages, the dominant and domineering ideology of evolutionary materialist scientism is foundationally fatally cracked, self falsifying and utterly intellectually bankrupt.
Let us bear that in mind — never mind, that will be locked out of the classroom — as we deal with the question of the reasonableness of believing in an inherently good Creator God and necessary being root of reality (which we next need to explore). END