One of our frequent objectors, JLA, has listed the consequences of evolutionary materialism, by way of objecting to BA’s further reply to the current crop of remarks at TSZ. (NB: I at first thought he might be being satirical, but, sadly, he is actually playing a straight hand. {Let me make this plain: FULL MARKS for sheer raw honesty. That needs to be respected and JLA must be treated with dignity. From what he says below, he is exposing what he sees as the too often unacknowledged consequences of evolutionary materialism, as what we could call an agnostic in transition.} )
I excerpted his list, and added some remarks on what the points reveal about evolutionary materialism. Not, because JLA is an opinion leader on the subject, or that he is saying something that has not been said by the likes of a Lewontin or a Provine or a Crick or even a Dawkins [cf. the just linked], but because in so speaking, he is frankly {U/D: and knowingly] exposing the consequences of the influence of such leading spokesmen on ordinary people.
And thereby inadvertently confirming the cogency and relevance of the concerns about the absurd and potentially destructive consequences of evolutionary materialism that have been put on record since the days of Plato in The Laws, Bk X.
As well as, exposing the telling relevance of Jesus’ classic warning about thinking oneself enlightened when in fact one is en-darkened because one’s eyes [reason and conscience] have gone bad; in the Sermon on the Mount:
Matt 6:22 “The eye is the lamp of the body. If then your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light. 23 But if your eye is diseased, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness! [NET]
Or, if you will, we can put it in terms of Plato’s Parable of the Cave, here viewed in terms of living by the false light of the artfully set up shadow shows in the cave (and onlookers may enjoy the “duppy story” here . . . as, the ghosts of Plato and Socrates came by for a visit recently):
[youtube d2afuTvUzBQ]
So, while I apologise in advance for embarrassment that may be caused, with all due respect, I need to hold up a mirror so that those willing to awaken will be able to see what is really going on.
From my response in the thread, which excerpts several of JLA’s points and comments on them on points:
_____________
>> No objective, absolute, inherent meaning in life or the universe
• No objective, absolute, inherent purpose in life or the universe
• No objective, absolute, inherent value in life or the universe>>
1 –> Thus, no basis for good/evil etc, and so one may not use evil as an objection to anything. Might and manipulation make ‘right.” This is what Plato pointed out in The Laws Bk X.
2 –> Kindly highlight these to TSZ for me as they will not believe it from the likes of me.
>>• We are the cobbled together Frankensteins of billions of years of trial and error>>
3 –> First point of direct trouble empirically, as we are anything but cobbled together, from the cellular molecular nanotech level up, what we see is elegant and sophisticated evident contrivance.
4 –> This is part of why the first stage of my challenge to such materialists is kindly explain on empirical evidence, OOL.
>>• No objective, absolute, inherent morality in life or the universe. No good, no evil, no right, no wrong>>
5 –> Thus, amorality and nihilism as Plato warned. But this flies in the teeth of the undeniable fact of moral governance, and is unlivable. (Cf here.)
>>• No objective, absolute, inherent truth in life or the universe
• No objective, absolute, inherent knowledge in life or the universe
• No objective, absolute, inherent logic in life or the universe>>
6 –> Absolute — untainted, undiluted truth and knowledge are a little different from objective [warranted, credibly so].
7 –> The first test is Royce’s assertion, Error exists, E. It is easy to show that by forming C = { E AND NOT-E}, that C must be false. On meaning,t hen NOT-E is false, and so E is undeniably true. This is an objective truth warranted to undeniable certainty, so that it is absolutely true.
8 –> Warranted, true belief is actually strong form knowledge, and so knowledge also exists.
9 –> As for logic and first principles of right reason, simply reflect on the self evident status of the identity cluster and the principle of sufficient reason, and one sees that likewise such collapses. [Cf. here.]
10 –> A world view that asserts confidently things in the teeth of such foundational self-evident truths is irretrievably irrational and false.
>>• We have no free-will, mind, consciousness, rationality or reason. They are illusions and our very personhood, identity and humanity are not real.>>
11 –> No ability to reason and to think straight. That is reductio ad absurdum.
>> • The emotions we express are just chemicals in our brain. The very things we seek in life like happiness, peace, contentment, joy are just chemicals reducing us to nothing more than chemical addicts.>>
12 –> if emotions are just chemicals, so is thinking, and the rest collapses again. Chemical interactions are not even in the same category as consciousness linked experiences such as love, or perceiving the truthfulness of Pons Asinorum in Geometry.
>>• We are no more important than other animals. A dog is a rat is a pig is a boy. >>
13 –> So, we can kill off people like rats if they get out of control? Do you really want to go there? As in, let us note (in the teeth of the recent JME proposal for “post-birth abortion) from over 30 years past where Schaeffer and Koop gave warning in the series, Whatever Happened to the Human Race:
[youtube 8uoFkVroRyY]
___________
I had wondered if JLA, of course , may be writing satirically here. Unfortunately, he removed all doubt. (Caution, vulgar language used.)
He really meant the above , and really did not seem to be aware of the full consequences of such thinking. Inadvertently exposing the systematic gaps in our education and the popular media presentations of issues (as well as highlighting the sophomoric nature of New Atheist bombast . . . ), in an era of mass, media-fanned scientism.
QED.
I trust the TSZ denizens are noticing. END
PS: I suggested to JLA, that he may want to see [1] how a worldview level analysis leads to the credibility of generic theism, and how onwards, [2] one may find good warrant to hold to Judaeo-Christian theism. The comments here in reply to Dawkins’ attempt in a Playboy interview to dismiss the historicity of Jesus, may also help.