Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

New interview with William Lane Craig – that Christian guy Dawkins wouldn’t debate

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
Flagellum

Here:

TBS: You have just returned from a very successful tour of the U.K., where you participated in nearly a dozen lectures and debates. Even so, the most famous atheist you were to debate—evolutionary biologist and bestselling author, Richard Dawkins—was a no-show. In a public statement that got a lot of web play, Dawkins claimed he did not want to debate with you because you refuse to distance yourself from God, who in the Book of Deuteronomy orders the destruction of the Canaanites, which Dawkins termed “genocide.” In hindsight, what do you make of this episode?

WLC: Well, in hindsight I have to say that Dawkins’ attacks in The Guardian and elsewhere turned out to be the best publicity for the event at the Sheldonian Theatre [at Oxford University—ed.] that we could have possibly made up! [vid] His reaction was so counterproductive, from his point of view. Other atheists in the blogosphere and also in The Guardian roundly condemned him for what were clearly manufactured pseudo-reasons for not participating in the debate with me. So the whole fiasco just proved to be a boon to the public profile of the lecture that I gave in the Sheldonian Theatre, which was responded to by three other Oxford faculty, who apparently didn’t share Richard Dawkins’ reservations about being on the platform with me. So it really was very helpful to our outreach!

(Wouldn’t debate? It wasn’t about the elevator. Yes, he said it was about this. More likely, some say, about this.  More coffee, please.)

Comments
F/N: I just put up a comment on a data point on the impact of the Aiden song, in a case with LouFCD of Anti Evo etc; it is as I warned. On p 2 of this thread here. KFkairosfocus
February 13, 2012
February
02
Feb
13
13
2012
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT
F/N: I know, I know, this is supposedly a dead thread. I did however run across something significant, in reviewing Anti Evo habituee LouFCD's attempted rebuttal to my personal blog's expose on the deleterious impacts of web porn (through statistics from Pink Cross Foundation, of former porn stars -- they are a good place to go for help if you are porn addicted BTW). Let's just point out that one of the statistics indicates that US divorce lawyers say that over half of divorces there are influenced by porn. LouFCD (one of those associated with a certain other site or two that shall be nameless) posted his attempted comment in an Anti Evo thread (I won't link that, you can find it for yourself if you want to wade through the mess), and lo and behold, a word that didn't mean much way back -- COFFERS -- suddenly takes on a huge and telling significance: ____________ L -- and FCD means "friend of Charles D": >> If more people spent their Sundays at home watching porn, there'd be less money in the coffers of those houses of hate and ignorance called churches. That could only be good for the world . . . >> ____________ Yup, exactly the sentiments and a key term from the Aiden song. The hostile sentiment addressed to the Christian church is an interesting turnabout projection, but it is exactly what the song puts up by using the vampire clergy image, and projecting blood mongering accusations. In short, the point I raised is here substantiated from teh mouth of one of those influenced by it. One who played a role in the cyberstalking and outing attempts made against me, and who was closely involved with the one who outright threatened my family. And, here is the tickler, no 1: following up, he runs a site with "NSFW" photos, including having had at the time a gallery of images of a young miss in a tub of water that raised serious questions, as her apparent age was like 14 - 16, from the cluster of those I asked. L claimed she was 23, but up to a police dep comm did not believe that. (And yes, you are on notice L et al.) Tickler no 2: L is a senior party at one of the penumbra of hostile sites we are dealing with. In short, the concerns about Aiden's message are very much on target, and are directly related tot he sort of attitudes and behaviour we have been seeing in the penumbra of attack sites. Worth noting for record. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
February 13, 2012
February
02
Feb
13
13
2012
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT
Isn't it far more likely that the Israelites just made up this story to justify their desire for land belonging to others. And the land in question doesn't look much like a Divine Gift. does it? I mean, it's so small and poor in natural resources. Doesn't it make more sense to say that what was promised to the Israelites was a land ruled over by the Divine Will - providing they remain obedient to It - which MUST then bring the richest SPIRITUAL blessings, IN THE FIRST PLACE; with material wealth following on the heels of that afterwards? However, the Israelites chose a material fulfilment, CONTRARY TO THE WILL OF GOD, which ended in genocide of the Canaanite - to explain away which, myths were created about how God commanded this wicked act? Why should we make ourselves slaves of words written by others instead of drawing the clear logical inferences from the facts before us?Sword
February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT
Zoe: I appreciate that you have taken an effort to respond on the Biblical view on homosexuality. As you can see above, I deliberately set several points for investigation by the serious. I also pointed to the online book, My Genes made me Do it, which provides eye-opening medical, sociological and general research on the subject, that move beyond stale talking point exchanges, as in how does one address the variable, culturally shaped expressions: Classic Greek, Modern Western, Melanesian models? Differences within western society between urban/rural and particular sub cultures etc etc. I did that for record, just to give those who are open minded something to chew on. I have little doubt but that the point of PG's raising the above was to push a hot button polarising issue, to try to discredit me in the eyes of those who are caught up in an Is 5:20 moral inversion. For such, the distinction between correcting the sin and caring for the person caught up in it is largely lost in the toxic talking point that to object to homosexual behaviour is to hate homosexuals. It will never register with them -- unless the indoctrination and polarisation are broken -- that when my colleague, friend and former hall mate ended up a suicide, it was a moment of grief and loss; a loss of a good mind our native land could ill afford, too. (FYI, it seems, arguably at least, the biggest driver of homosexual suicide attempts is unstable, short-term relationships characteristic of that community; and the rates are comparable in homosexuality approving communities as well as disapproving ones.) We could go on and on, but he basic point is this was yet another polarising distractor for the thread; meant to feed the smear that design thought is nothing more than Creationism in a cheap tuxedo. Never mind how carefully that is corrected, if the objectors manage to drag threads into Bible discussions or the like they will use that to say see, it is all about creationism. No, it is not. Demonstrably. And, where it is appropriate to deal with theological issues, is in the context of worldviews, ethical and related questions, which have to do with the wider fact that we are dealing with a culture conflict of major proportions. One in which the objectors often have their own worldview motivations and even indoctrination-laced socio-cultural baggage. The close association between Evolutionary Materialism and Atheism, is a very clear case in point. I hope this helps. At least, those willing to be helped. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT
@ Peter Griffin, re Homosexuality is not Condemned in the Bible! "The Bible's condemnation of homosexuality is as clear and plain as the Bible's condemnation of murder, adultery, premarital sex, kidnapping, lying and idolatry. Further, for me to openly condemn homosexuality theologically makes me no more a "gay basher" than I am an "adultery basher", "premarital sex basher", "kidnapper basher" or a "murderer basher". If you disagree, your argument is with God's Bible. "The homosexual community has two ways of promoting their personal choices of being homosexual through the religious forum. First, some will claim the Bible actually promotes and condones homosexuality. Second, others try to get the Bible banned from public use by categorizing it as hate literature." "For any to use the Bible to condone rather than condemn homosexual activity in the theological arena just proves such a one has absolutely no idea what the Bible actually teaches. For anyone to suggest the Bible says homosexual activity is acceptable to God, is nothing short of willful blindness. So to set the record straight once and for all, here is what the Bible teaches on the subject." "Anyone who has heard of the cities of "Sodom and Gommorah" knows that they were notorious hotbeds of homosexuality. Gen 19:5-8 "and they called to Lot and said to him, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.' But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, 'Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly.'" The Greek word in the New Testament for homosexuality is literally "a sodomite". Jock is trying to redefine what the term "sodomite" means. (A term that has unchanged in 5000 years, even today- "sodomy") Apart from the fact the city was clearly destroyed by God because of homosexuality in the narrative of Gen 19, even the New Testament clearly states exactly the same thing in Jude 7 "Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire." Any sinner should always remember that the God who commands us to love our neighbour is the same God who will cast any and all unrepentant sinners into the "eternal fire". Here are more Bible quotes, Lev 18:22-23 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." Lev 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death." 1 Cor 6:9 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals" 1 Tim 1:9-10 "realizing the fact that (civil) law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers" Rom 1:26-27 "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error." "If the homosexual community chooses to practice homosexuality in privacy, that is there free choice. But let such persons know for certain that the Christian Bible condemns all such practices and God will judge them unfit for the kingdom of heaven if the continue to practice and openly promote homosexual sex." Seven Things I Wish Pro-Gay People Would Admit by Bob Davies 1. "I wish they would admit that many people are not happy with their homosexuality or lesbianism, and that this conflict is internal, based on legitimate, intelligent religious and moral convictions--not just the result of a so-called "homophobic" society which is forcing guilt upon people who don't conform to a heterosexual ethic. Stop throwing out the cheap, inaccurate labels like "internalized homophobia" to explain our motivations." 2. "I wish they would acknowledge that homosexuals and lesbians can experience significant change in their sexual feelings and desires, even though they may never be totally heterosexual in their sexual thoughts and feelings. Be honest enough to admit that such change is significant and genuine, even if it isn't complete." 3. "I wish they would acknowledge that many former homosexuals and lesbians have found a greater measure of peace and satisfaction after leaving a gay or lesbian lifestyle than they ever experienced while embracing homosexuality." "Not all "ex-gays" are miserable, plotting how to secretly fulfill their homosexual lusts without being caught." 4. "I wish they would acknowledge that many former homosexuals and lesbians have genuine joy in their marriages." "Most former gays and lesbians don't get married in a futile attempt to "escape" homosexuality; they marry as a natural consequence of resolving that issue in their lives. "5. I wish they would acknowledge that all people have as much right to pursue a heterosexual lifestyle as they do to pursue homosexuality." "Former homosexuals and lesbians should not be harassed and castigated by the gay community. But I have never heard any gay or lesbian leaders speak out against the violence (such as bomb threats and physical/verbal abuse) which some people perpetuate against Exodus ministries." 6. "I wish they would stop equating our decision to leave homosexuality with "hatred" and "bigotry" against gays and lesbians." "We don't hate gays; we simply desire to live free of homosexuality. Don't put nasty labels upon our motives. That's being judgmental and unfair." 7. "I wish pro-gay religious leaders would admit that their endorsement and promotion of monogamous homosexual relationships is a facade." "Many--probably most--men and women involved in long-term partnerships are not sexually monogamous, but gay churches don't discipline members for committing "adultery" outside their "gay marriage." Neither do they discipline gays or lesbians who have sex before entering into a "holy union" with their partner. " Bob Davies is past President of Exodus International and an ex-gay himself. He has been married for nine years. (Used by permission of the Exodus Standard, P.O. Box 77652, Seattle, WA, 98177.)Zoe
February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT
F/N: Apparently, the objectors above don't know enough about brainwashing -- "thought reform"/"coercive persuasion" (etc) -- to realise that brainwashing is a popular name for some fairly specific procedures that exploit the effects of isolation and alienation from one's socio-cultural milieu, induced cognitive dissonance and crisis, manipulated re-orientation of thoughts, attitudes, perceptions and roles, leading to a new pattern stabilised either externally or internally. In the case of suicide attackers, such as the Tamil Tigers or Al Qaeda etc, a sustained intensity is required that is extremely hard to achieve, and requires trained manipulators. As one who has had to expose manipulative sects and help pick up broken pieces of shattered lives, I will not give details publicly, save to say that if a change process is manipulative and you cannot get straight answers to reasonable questions, get out. But, in the light of what should be obvious to all on the nature of worldviews, the attempt to make an equation Faith = 9/11, as can be seen above from objectors, is a crude and tellingly revealing smear driven by a rage-filled hostility and disrespect that are utterly revealing. As in, Alcibiades type stuff. KFkairosfocus
February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT
PG: It has been a long day, and you have set out on dragging in yet another tangent. I will simply say a man's saliah is as the man, and refer you to Rom 1 and 1 Cor 6:9 - 11, with side lights from Mt 19:1 - 6 or so on the creation order being disordered so willfully in our time. Note as well, the issue is not the person -- we are all sinners struggling with moral challenges -- but the behaviour. I suggest as well since you want to play with my blog, that you look up the link for My genes made me do it, and read the summary and at least Ch 1. But this blog is not the place for a long tangential debate. Those who wish to play Is 5:20 games will have to deal with a far more august personage than I on the matter, so I suggest that the burden of proof is theirs, not mine, to justify their BEHAVIOUR. Good night GEM of TKIkairosfocus
February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT
Is that opinion a result of your freedom to think, reason and decide responsibly or is it programming from the book you hold as holy?
If he thinks something you agree with then it's freedom to think. If you disagree then it's brainwashing. That's the only difference. Why isn't that a fair question to ask you? Are you free to think or did someone program you?ScottAndrews2
February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT
Just to split hairs,
You will find that alot of Anti theists who call themselves Atheists like using this incorrect definition because they like to go on the attack without providing their burden of proof.
If someone calls themselves an atheist but has the definition wrong, I would say that whatever they think it means is a description of what they personally believe. They might not be using the word technically right, but if they say they don't believe in God as opposed to believing in the nonexistence of God, then that's what they believe (or don't.)ScottAndrews2
February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT
KF,
So, we would have no freedom of will to decide apart from the impulses of chance and necessity, i.e. responsible choice goes out the window. Thus, we have no freedom to think, reason or decide responsibly.
I've been reading your blog, and it seems that you have a problem with homosexuality, and furthermore you seem to be of the opinion that homosexuals are, by definition, immoral. This strikes me as an odd position for somebody like you to take, who constantly expresses their adherence to the biblical message. Is that opinion a result of your freedom to think, reason and decide responsibly or is it programming from the book you hold as holy? Would you care to repudiate that here and now with a clear, straight denial that a homosexual person is by definition immoral? Where in the bible does Jesus condemn homosexuals? If he did not why do you?Peter Griffin
February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT
Dr Liddle: It's been a busy day, so only now can I respond. Has it struck you that Lewontin was explicitly summarising the dominant view of the scientific elites among whom he is a member and of which the late Carl Sagan was also a member? That among the four further major cites are the US National Academy of Sciences and the US National Science Teachers Association BOARD? Did you miss where I documented from the Free Thinker Aveling and Sir Charlse Robert's own son Francis, that Darwin was an agnostic, in the context where this is in effect soft form atheism or its kissing cousin? Does that not underscore that Provine had done his homework and knew that Darwin dismissed the existence of God as at best highly dubious? Do you not recognise that, on evo mat premises, the foundational ISes of our universe are matter, energy, space, time and forces of blind chance and mechanical necessity, none of which can objectively ground OUGHT? So, Hume's guillotine, valid form, slices, and OUGHT has no basis in the foundation of the system of the materialist view? And so also, we are reduced on such a basis to might or manipulation makes 'right'? Moreover, on such a view, we are wholly shaped by our genes and psycho-social conditioning, rooted in personal and cultural history. So, we would have no freedom of will to decide apart from the impulses of chance and necessity, i.e. responsible choice goes out the window. Thus, we have no freedom to think, reason or decide responsibly. And, that is of course the context in whyich Dawkins too reflects the patterns of the New Atheists. but for him, we have a metric of just how representativehe is: his 25 - 30 year string of best sellers, which have been lionised far and wide. Indeed, he is the acknowledged leading spokesman for the new atheists, and just retired as the Oxford Simonyi professor for the public understanding of science. Was there any significant protest of the scientists that he was not a major voice, or was propounding outlandish ill founded views that should be shunned rather than lionised? He had his critics, but we do not find any mainstream view that he is a crank spinning out ill-founded speculations. Save, from the philosophers and theologians who panned his sophomoric The God Delusion. So, sorry, Dr Liddle, your assertions do not wash, and your comparison does not work. Remember, the point I made on the al Qaeda bombers, was that they were subjected to a brainwashing regime and were artificially made into living bombs by leaders of a narrow and unrepresentative movement. It is the loaded, presumptuous comparison of your average Evangelical Christian or Jew or the like to such a terrorist that is an appalling smear, and I think you have some fairly serious explaining to do on your attempts to twist the correction about. Good day, madam GEM of TKIkairosfocus
February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT
Hello Elizabeth, You seem to be confused as to what Atheism is and think that it is "a-theism " but it's not "a-theism" but "athe-ism". And It comes from the greek "a-theos" which means "no gods". Hence, "athe-ism" means BELIEF IN atheos (there are no gods). The definition "a-theism" is a fairly recent attempt to trivialize itself as merely describing a psychological state of lacking belief. You will find that alot of Anti theists who call themselves Atheists like using this incorrect definition because they like to go on the attack without providing their burden of proof. Now we got that out of the way, You said. "And nor are Lewontin, Provine and Dawkins particularly representative of those of us who accept the theory of evolution and don’t believe in god or gods." I agree Elizabeth, Why should we restrict the logical consequences of Atheism to those guys when there are other Atheists Who show the moral poverty of Atheism and who are honest about what logically follows from Atheism, It is unfair to you when other Atheists are aware of how empty Atheism is when it comes to morality. "I think there is a certain degree of plausibility among atheists in the view that without some kind of transcendental intelligence in the universe, there can be no objective moral laws... It seems to me that all ethical codes must ultimately be man-made, and thus there could be no objective criteria for determining if human actions are right or wrong. Admitting that moral laws are man-made is equivalent to acknowledging that ethical rules are arbitrary and therefore human beings are not obligated to follow them... given that moral subjectivism is just as logically viable as moral objectivism and that moral objectivism is implausible if a scientific naturalism is true, I think that there is a good case for the nonexistence of objective moral values" Keith Augustine Atheist Philosopher. "If there is no single moral authority. . . we have to in some sense “create” values for ourselves. . . that means that moral claims are not true or false in the same way as factual claims are... moral claims are judgments it is always possible to someone to disagree with... without saying something that is factually false... you may disagree with me but you cannot say I have made a factual error" (Atheism: A Very Short Introduction, pp. 41-51 Julian biaggini Atheist Philosopher. Elizabeth, There are three options available for you, Abandon Atheism, Embrace Moral Nihilism or give up Logic. You have given up logic, When you can't live consistently with an Atheist philosophy of life then maybe it is time for you to give up that Philosophy and be consistent.mrchristo
February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT
"Barb, you don’t even seem to know which people you are having this conversation with, forgive me if I don’t have much faith in your ability to do thorough, objective research! I think there is little point pursuing this discussion." Yes, because running away is always the answer. If you'd have bothered to read the thread, you'd see that I was responding to not only you, but champignon and Elizabeth as well. Forgive me if I continue to think that you are simply taking the coward's way out by not responding to any of my points.Barb
February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT
Barb, I said:
I’m not, but it was very charitable and christian of you to make this false accusation. I forgive you 0)
You replied:
That was directed to GCUGreyArea. I’m sure you know that. Try again.
But I am GCUGreyArea.
Koresh only had what, a few hundred followers, if that?
Yes, many more than Noah. I explained:
You then changed the subject from the massacre of the Cannanites, to Abraham and his son … ?
You asked:
Try reading the thread.
I quoted all the exchanges in my reply - read them. Lets just skip to the end:
I claim to have done some research.
Barb, you don't even seem to know which people you are having this conversation with, forgive me if I don't have much faith in your ability to do thorough, objective research! I think there is little point pursuing this discussion.GCUGreyArea
February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
03:38 AM
3
03
38
AM
PDT
Fanatical suicide bombers are not even particularly representative of Islam
And nor are Lewontin, Provine and Dawkins particularly representative of those of us who accept the theory of evolution and don't believe in god or gods. Please consider your own "prejudicial and hostile" thinking.Elizabeth Liddle
February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
12:57 AM
12
12
57
AM
PDT
Timbo: Pardon. It looks like you need a refresher from the FAQ, top of this page under references. Also, look at the definition of ID under the same tab. You will be able to see that the ID = Creationism in a cheap tuxedo smear, is just that. A cheap propaganda stunt. It is now very stale and well past sell-by date. You also will see that the theory of design, and more specifically the design inference, is about empirical warrant for the inference to design on tested, observable, reliable signs. Signs such as CSI, IC and since specification in biology is "cashed out" in function, FSCO/I. but also, because Science is the dominant intellectual institution in our era and civilisation, and because origins science issues inevitably intersect with deep worldviews questions, worldviews questions will come up and need to be answered seriously in the wider discussion of design theory and its context in society. Not least, because of smears targetted at design theory by those who know or should know better, but hope to profit from propagating irresponsible falsehoods such as the one addressed at the top of this comment. In that context, this thread has surfaced a huge array of the underlying issues and themes, talking points and smears used by the New Atheist movement. Think about the equation FAITH = 9/11. Think about the antisemitic implications of the assertion that the God of the OT/Tanakh is a bronze age tribal deity and genocide encouraging moral monster, and ask yourself why if it would be out of order to accuse a rabbi like that, so many think it acceptable to smear Christians like that. Think about an Aiden, which seems to think it appropriate to respond to the Christian gospel by smearing verbal filth across it, and to portray Christian clergy as blood-mongering vampires. Think about how, just next month, the leading new atheist spokesman, prof Dawkins, is carded to stand on the stage that has been "warmed up" by this so wonderful band. Think about the theme of this thread, where Dawkins, who evidently sees nothing wrong with standing on the same stage as Aiden, and would probably shrink from the sort of antisemitism his fellow leading New Atheist, Christopher Hitchens indulged (as is documented on p. 1 of this discussion), took occasion of Craig's views that are fairly similar to those of Boteach, to smear him as unworthy of sharing the same debate forum. (I frankly think the evident reality is that Dawkins was fishing about for any excuse to avoid having to stand up and defend the outrageous, sophomoric bombast in his The God Delusion and other works, in a debate with a leading, informed Christian Philosopher-Theologian who has made significant contributions on say the philosophy of time and the Cosmological argument. That he resorted to smears is utterly revealing.) I think that any fair minded person would acknowledge that something toxic is going on here, and that it is appropriate to pause and address it. Even here at UD. Going beyond, in the immediate context of your comment in reply to Zoe, kindly remember that essentially anyone who is within the reasonable bounds of civility may register and comment here at UD. That even includes Christians of what you would call a "fundamentalist" bent. And, Zoe is speaking in outline of worldview foundations, and where he sees warrant for the Christian faith. He has put forth a serious and provocative thesis, that coherence, ruthlessly and broadly applied is the key criterion of test for truth. This has a point, in that we are in the end making judgements on facts, structure of reasoned arguments, and on explanatory adequacy. The breakdown of logic in this context, will normally come out by the emergence of inconsistencies in our reasoning. This is in fact the context of the classic reductio ad absurdum argument strategy, which is at minimum, a major weapon in the mathematician's arsenal. So powerful is it, ever since Pythagoras discovered the incommensurateness of the sides and the diagonal of a square, that it is used to justify whole new realms in mathematics, starting of course with the irrational numbers. In worldviews analysis, this principle is very useful in worldviews foundations too. Take Josiah Royce's "Error exists." If one tries to deny it, one is rapidly reduced to patent absurdity, i.e we see a reductio, and we see that several popular worldview notions are irrational: that here is no truth beyond subjective persuasion, that there are no self-evident truths, that relativism is a well founded view, that truth is not real, that knowable truth is not accessible, etc etc etc. We have just mown down a wide swath of today's post modernist views! Zoe has also said something very important about that which is known by experience to be true: facts are stubborn things. So, when we have credible facts in hand and are in need of a coherent framework that addresses the facts, we have to reckon with the force of facts. And, as Zoe points out, if we are to have a responsible worldview, we need therefore to reckon very seriously with the factual claims surrounding a certain Jesus from Nazareth in Israel, c 27 - 30 AD. And, with the scriptures that predicted these things. Playing at selectively hyperskeptical games to brush them aside, or worse, tagging, smearing, scapegoating and angrily or contemptuously dismissing will not do. At the very least, we need to reckon seriously with some very sobering evidence from C1 here. Similarly, and lastly for this comment, we need to reckon soberly with evidence that we find ourselves morally obligated. Even the objectors above, imply that. So, the only worldviews worth serious consideration, are those that can objectively ground OUGHT. Given Hume's guillotine, the only way for ought to be in a worldview is for it to rest on a grounding IS that can justify OUGHT. It may not be politically correct, and many plainly find it offensive to say such, but the alternative to this is, that OUGHT is simply a genteel cover for might and/or manipulation make 'right.' But our consciences tell us different, that OUGHT is real. Here is the kicker, T: the only serious worldview foundational IS that can objectively ground such OUGHTNESS, such moral government, is an inherently good and wise, fair and just Creator God. That is the key sticking point above. It is also the reason why the silly equation FAITH = 9/11 is so much of a bigoted, ill-informed smear. This, I took time to address and expose for what it is. Now, T, look back at this thread again and ask yourself, looking in the mirror, what is going on with your side, at the worldviews and society level of the discussion. G'day GEM of TKIkairosfocus
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
11:42 PM
11
11
42
PM
PDT
P.S. If that is God's word I have quoted, and I say it is, then it is also God's winky/smiley, because it was a simple copy and paste from the KJV. See! God even has the net covered in scripture! Amazing! Quick! Someone tell the KJV only crowd about this!Brent
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
10:16 PM
10
10
16
PM
PDT
Bydand, See post # 20.1.1.2.16 above. Your take is wrong. It isn't, at least, what Christians claim. We don't claim that you or anyone cannot know or follow the moral law apart from knowing or acknowledging God. On the contrary, it should be a sobering fact that we do not, but conversely hold, according to scripture, that these laws are knowable and binding to anyone, and it is they that will condemn a man in the end if he doesn't live according to them. Romans 1:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen , being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful ; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened . 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools , 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator , who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another ; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet . 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient ; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
And Romans 2:
11 For there is no respect of persons with God. 12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; 13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified . 14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness , and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another ;)
Brent
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
10:10 PM
10
10
10
PM
PDT
This is what I was looking for:
I’d say there are three related sources: 1.The fact that we are social animals and therefore interdependent. 2.The fact that we have “theory of mind” capacity, and can understand how the world is perceived from another person’s point of view (both literally – it probably starts with “shared gaze” capacity – and metaphorically). 3.Our language capacity, and with it, our capacity for “mental time travel” and thus the capacity to reify distant goals as they affect both others and ourselves, and thus make choices that are not solely determined by immediate personal reward. In short, it evolved. But whether you agree with me that it evolved, or argue that it was implanted in us as a gift from God, it is undeniable that we have it, because every language has a word for “ought” AFAIK, and I know of no culture in which “duty” is an unknown concept.
But it's very problematic. First, your 1, 2, and 3 are not descriptions of source in the sense of where they came from ultimately, but only how we may realize their existence. It is simply giving an account of how we may come to realize them, or probably more accurately, how we can conceive that altruism may be beneficial. But that seems in a roundabout way to imply one knows they are not "from above" and may potentially not actually be binding. But, I don't think we need to argue about that, for you said, "in short, it evolved", and it seems then that your three points are a description of parts of that process, then. But, if it evolved, then it isn't from a higher source. Even if Nature, somehow, evolved these rules apart from man, it still isn't permissible to say that they are binding, for man is a part of Nature as much as (really, more than) anything else. So just as a man can tell you that you aren't an authority over him, you being a mere co-human, a man can also say that Nature is no authority over him because he is co-Nature with Nature herself. In other words, I have the valid option of telling Nature to go take a flying leap. But of course, you don't believe in a teleological Nature anyway, so you would have further trouble in arguing that Nature "knows what's best" for us. At any rate, your three points above make it sound like you are saying that these binding morals evolved from man (again, it's really the same as saying from Nature, man being part of that Nature). So, you haven't shown a coherent way for these morals to be binding, for: *** If man is the source of the moral law, then man governs the moral laws, and the moral laws do not govern man. *** Now, the problem is what I emphasized above in quoting you, "it is undeniable that we have it". Well, yes, it is. You have it, and you know it's binding. That isn't the problem in itself. The problem is that when I say, "You have no grounding for your morals, to make them actually binding upon us rather than arbitrary.", your inner "moral indignation" rises up and says, almost rightly, "Hey! I have binding morals just like you, you creep!". But it's only almost right. The reason isn't that you don't have the morals claimed, but that it is answering what wasn't asked, or defending against what was never blamed. Analogy: ____________________ Three Men Walking One normal guy walks up. I ask him to jump. He does. Another guy walks up. He is as normal as the first guy, with one exception. He is walking in the air. I ask him to jump. He tries, but cannot. He is not grounded. A third guy walks up. He is as normal as the other two, with a different exception. He is walking on the ground, but says that he doesn't believe in the ground. I ask him to jump. He does. ____________________ Now, when I and others say you have no grounding for a binding morality, you think we are claiming that you are the second "guy". "But", you say, "Look! I can jump just as well as you!" and you can. But I am not claiming you are the second guy at all. I'm claiming that you're the third guy. You are grounded, and can jump as well as anyone. It's not your grounding that's the problem in the physical and practical sense, it's your thinking about the ground that is wrong. Your thinking is irrational and incoherent on this point. You are denying the ground from which you can, still, jump. You can jump from now until the cows come home, but until your thinking about the ground changes, you'll never have correct understanding of an obvious fact. You can, and do, have correct and binding morals, just as the third man can jump, but your thinking, also just like the third man, is simply incorrect.Brent
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
09:18 PM
9
09
18
PM
PDT
Nope, ID has nothing to do with religion.....Timbo
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT
Truth, by definition, is absolute. Truth is the ultimate certitude; regardless of whoever denies this reality. Truth, does not need anyone's approval or acceptance to be Truth. Reality IS* synonymous with Truth; and truth is unyielding, one can choose to ignore it, scorn and scoff at it, or even curse it, but all to know avail; in the end, Truth impassively stands its ground in the face of the most overpowering, emotional, verbal, and intellectually dishonest onslaught. Truth, can be, and is especially brutal to those who worship at the Alter of Theory. This is because Truth has a way of frustrating theory, and, much like the mongose circling a snake, ultimately wearing it down, and devouring it. Man cannot invent Truth; Almighty God of historic, divine revelation, our Creator, IS* the Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Immutable, Eternal, source of ALL truth. He allows us to descover Truth, which is unchanging. Reason, the ability to think rationally, critically, objectively, IS* necessary for 'Revelation' I.e., facts, evidence to be COHERENT. Therefore, the structure of justification, warranted credible facts and evidence, in defending any proposition 'Truth claim' IS* coherence. Coherence IS* our sole criterion for Truth. The Historic Judeo/Christian Worldview. This Worldview, essentially contain truth claims about reality, which are either TRUE of FALSE. Therefore, any Worldview must be subjected to, and must sustain (3) test in order to be considered valid. 1) Logical Consistency 2) Empirical Adequacy 3) Experiential Relevancy The only religious Worlview, across comparative difficulties, premised on warranted, credible facts and evidence, that meet and sustain to, all three of test, is the Historic Judeo/christian Worldview. Secondly, and intricately connected to the above criterior for validity, every system must also demonstrate, and deal with the following question: 1)Origin 2)Meaning 3)Morality 4)Destiny Again, the theistic Judeo/Christian Worldview, is the ONLY* one that convincingly demonstrate and sustain to, the above questions, unparalleled with any other religious, and/or secular, Evolutionary/Atheistic Worldview. And, this is just scratching the surface of the Historic Judeo/Christian Worldview. The only ancient document, that gives us the Origin, Meaning, Morality, and ultimate Destiny of mankind, beyond anything he could EVER have imagined or dreamed, IS* the Bible, Almighty God's Divinly Inspired Word, which has NEVER* proved to be wrong in any of its over 6,000 predictive/prophetic proclamations, throughtout the course of history. As Martin Luther King once said, "Facts are stubborn things, and only the stubborn refuse to accept them." "To say of what IS* that it IS*, or what is NOT* that it IS* NOT* is TRUE." (Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1077b 26) Emphasis added. The Truth Shall Make You Free, from all deception and lies! The Lord Jesus Christ, said: "And you shall KNOW* the Truth, and the Truth SHALL* make you FREE." ( John 8:32) Emphasis added. Jesus also said: "I AM the WAY, (not one of many ways!) the TRUTH, (not one of many truths) and the LIFE*( the Only One that gives Eternal Life). No one comes to the Father, except through ME." ( John 14:6) Emphasis added. Across the nations of the World, over the last 2000 years, from every ethic, and racial background, and increasing rapidly over recent decades MILLIONS from Russia, China, Africa, and yes, the Middle East (Muslims), in India and Paskistan, throughout South America, are coming to the Only Lord and Saviour, the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, The Lord Jesus Christ, and are finding and enjoying, the Joy, Peace, and Liberty, IN* HIM*, been set free from the bondage of ritualistic religion, secular materialism, humanism, and even dead Atheism. Many miracles are well documented in these countries, that have occured IN* the Name of Jesus Christ, with amazing testimonies, celebrating what Jesus said, 2000 years ago, to those who BELIEVE, by Faith, not blind faith, but reasonable faith, grounded IN* the historic reality of the eyewitnesses, as recorded in the Gospel and Epistles of 1st century Apostolic EYEWITNESSES, comfirmed over and over again, throughout the centuries, and continuing right up until today, and will continue, right up until His Glorious appearing, at His Second Advent! Scoffers and skepics, will continue in their unbelief; while vast multitudes around the world, choose to believe, from the evidence and facts, that can be denied, by the skeptics, but NOT refuted!Zoe
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT
First, thank you for the long and fairly detailed reply. It is interesting and certainly helpful, and yes, makes things clearer, but not quite totally clear.
Cool, thanks.
So, in the sense I am using the term “why is morality binding” is a non-question – it’s a bit like asking “why is adhesive sticky”? If morality wasn’t binding, we wouldn’t call it morality. We would never need to use the word “ought”.
This seems like an attempt at sleight of hand. OF COURSE for morality to be morality it must be binding. So my question should be clearly understood to mean something more like: How did it get sticky, and what keeps it that way?
It certainly wasn't an attempt at sleight of hand. I'll try to explain, below, what I mean:
I am driving 120 mph down a city street and you tell me I cannot do it. I tell you that I don’t care what you say I can or cannot do, and continue on. You then explain that this isn’t just something of your fancy, but there is a law against my actions, with officials that have the authority over me to enforce these rules. That is an example of a binding rule. It’s no answer to say it’s binding because it’s binding. You must answer that it is binding because it comes from a higher authority. Only then is it truly binding.
Well, "law" means that it's binding. So it's not binding because it's binding, it's binding because it's a legal requirement, and they are, by definition, binding. Morality are, by definition, binding, though, like laws, why may choose not to be bound by them. So just as you can break a binding speed limit, so I can say: "well, I really ought to go and visit poor old Auntie Mabel, but I'd much rather sit here and each chocolates in front of the fire, so I will". The visit to Auntie Mabel is binding (that's why I used the word "ought") but I choose not to be bound.
So, where did these binding and “sticky” morals come from? Which is the same as asking how did they get sticky, for if they didn’t come from a higher authority, they wouldn’t be “sticky”.
Well, laws are binding, as you say, because they come from, well not a "higher authority" necessarily, but because they are they are enacted on our behalf by leaders of the collective. In other words, they are a legal imperative. So where do we get our moral imperative from? Why do we have this word "ought" we use for things that we would personally rather not do but which will benefit other people? I'd say there are three related sources: 1.The fact that we are social animals and therefore interdependent. 2.The fact that we have "theory of mind" capacity, and can understand how the world is perceived from another person's point of view (both literally - it probably starts with "shared gaze" capacity - and metaphorically). 3.Our language capacity, and with it, our capacity for "mental time travel" and thus the capacity to reify distant goals as they affect both others and ourselves, and thus make choices that are not solely determined by immediate personal reward. In short, it evolved. But whether you agree with me that it evolved, or argue that it was implanted in us as a gift from God, it is undeniable that we have it, because every language has a word for "ought" AFAIK, and I know of no culture in which "duty" is an unknown concept.Elizabeth Liddle
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT
I think maybe the "fear" is that more people will realise that it’s possible to lead a moral, selfless, GOOD life, without reference to any deity or self-appointed representative of a deity; or to any ancient writings or, indeed, philosophers. It’s a fear of losing power over others: tinged, I sometimes think, with envy.Bydand
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT
Champignon, You make a good point here, "Remember, according to you there weren’t very many of them left in the land since most of the people had decided to leave before the Israelite invasion" Kudos! But dont let that get to you head. Remember that I've been working under YOUR assumption that there were cananite children still living with their evil parents in canaan right before israel launched their attack. But now that I think of it, why should we put it past the canannites to sacrifice ALL their remaining children in an effort to guarantee that their gods back them in battle against israel and give them victory? If Im right, there wouldnt have been that many children left. Sick nazi cananites wouldnt have thought too much of it. The bible passages dont mention israelites having to put to the sword any cananite children. As your so fond of quoting it says,"do not leave alive anything that breathes". What if the only ones breathing were the nazi cananites with the blood of their remaining children in their hands? "Feeding and sheltering them is more humane than killing them" No duh sherlock! But you see champ, the world is not as black and white as you make it out to be. There would be circumstances in which feeding and sheltering captives would not be a possibility. The israelites were constantly complaining of hunger themselves and on various occasions seriously contemplated going back to egypt and risk being severely punished. It sure as hell would have made things downright critical if they would have had to take in a considerable amount of captives. "Which is more likely: 1) That a good, loving God commanded a horrible genocide, or 2) That the Israelites rationalized a horrible genocide by attributing it to their God?" Is that a rhetorical question? Of course number two is more likely. That being said, it has yet to be demonstrated that the israelites commited any genocide. They were never commanded to,"hunt the cananites unto the ends of the earth." The judgement on the majority of the cananites was to face deportation, and afterwards the israelites were to leave them alone, not go after them. The remaining cananites faced the death penalty for their crimes. I see no genocide being commandd here. Just justice. One more thing. The israelites didnt even want to do it, and in fact didnt and as God predicted they fell into the ways of the cananites, and they themselves along the road started practicing child sacrifice. Why would they rationalize something they didnt want to do, and in fact failed to do?kuartus
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT
F/N: I get a little tired of seeing the 9/11 terrorists portrayed as though this is a typical product of that horribly irrational and barbarous thing: FAITH. The very fact that some seem to think it is a legitimate talking point to put forth is revealing on what we are up against. Let's lay this snide little bit of poisonous rhetoric to rest: 1 --> Fanatical suicide bombers are not even particularly representative of Islam. 2 --> They are the product of intensive brainwashing that is much more akin to what happens in the most destructive cults or out of control intelligence agencies that you can imagine. Indeed, they are just that, a horrific blend of the two. And, it is very hard to get someone that deeply brainwashed. This is a phenomenon of truly bizarre social psychology, with surprisingly little to do with religion. 3 --> Indeed, it is unsurprising that the immediate antecedent example was the largely secular Tamil Tigers, and before that Japanese suicide attack units. 4 --> So also, it should be blatantly obvious -- save to the utterly rage driven with the warped judgement that that produces -- between normal people who follow a religious tradition and are integrated into normal community life and those who have been cut off from normality to undergo this sort of brainwashing. 5 --> But there is something else at work, where many have been misled to perceive "faith" as an inherently irrational act, one that is bizarre and suspect. This in large part reflects materialist indoctrination that sets up "skepticism" as the intellectual virtue to be prized, and equates faith with blind credulity on no reasonable warrant. 6 --> In fact, ironically, such a view is what is really incoherent, ill considered and unwarranted. Especially, where it spills over into selective hyperskepticism and strawmannish, supercilious, even sophomoric dismissals of what is not properly understood. 7 --> To restore balance, let us first ask, why accept a given claim A as trustworthy of being true? generally speaking that is because of something else, B that supports it and which we accept. 8 --> So, why accept B? C. Then D, . . . 9 --> We see looming out of the mists here an infinite regress of warrant, which is an impossible task for the finite and fallible. 10 --> So, we must truncate the chain somewhere. Looping in a circle does not help, so we are stuck at some point, say F, that we take as plausible and credible without further warrant. 11 --> F, of course is one's faith-point, the point of trust where one takes first principles or first insights or first experiences for granted as credibly so. 12 --> We all do this, and so we all live by faith. 13 --> The issue is which faith, and why that one. 14 --> This brings us tot he key worldviews level challenge: comparative difficulties across alternative worldview stances, on factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory power. 15 --> of course, it is possible to have a set of commitments that are ill-considered and ill digested. This is act5ually the usual case in 0ur day and age, we tend to catch presuppositions like people catch measles or flu, from those around us. (Which BTW is what sets us up for brainwashing or less extreme indoctrination and blind adherence to some panel of experts or reference authorities or other. And, a panel dressed in the holy lab coat can be just as off base as one dressed in ecclesiastical robes.). 16 --> So, we cannot prove everything, and must trust some things, if we are to know anything and operate responsibly in the real world. SURPRISE! 17 --> And, that point of trust is our point of faith. 18 --> Going beyond the issue is to have a reasonable faith, a factually adequate, coherent, explanatorily powerful worldview that is not an ad hoc patchwork, is not simplistic, does not exert inconsistent standards of warrant for what we are inclined to accept and what we are inclined to doubt, when they are of comparable degree of access to warrant, and so forth. 19 --> Of course, the main target for skeptical denigration and dismissal in today's hostile climate is Judaeo-Christian theism. I suggest that if you are serious about seeing why intelligent, educated people are Christians in today's day and age, start here on in context as a useful 101. _________ It should be clear enough now why it is utterly unfair and even slanderously bigoted and scapegoating to equate faith with what happened on 9/11. I hope those who have indulged themselves in such prejudicial and hostile thinking will stop and think again. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT
I am sorry that you are taking a correction to a major worldview moral hazard, as a personal attack.
There comes a point at which it is difficult to take it any other way, kf. It is my world view, and I do not think I present a moral hazard to anyone by virtue of holding it. I'm not personally offended, but I think that continuing to imply that we may is highly divisive.
I cannot help that, but I still have the responsibility to point out that evolutionary materialism is a worldview that has no foundational IS that can objectively ground OUGHT.
And as I keep saying in counter-point, it hs no more or less foundation than your own.
It thus is forced to ground ought on power games, whether the naked might makes right, or the veiled manipulation makes right variety.
And as I keep saying in rebuttal, it does no such thing, unlike, for example, the world view that defines God as good because He is powerful, not because we recognise him as good. There is absolutely nothing in "evolutionary materialism" (assuming I understand what you mean by that phrase) that justifies the view that "naked might makes right". Nothing.Elizabeth Liddle
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT
F/N: A little context helps: >>the objectors above imply this all over the place when they accuse us of all sorts of moral failings, real or imagined, though of course at a more sophisticated level some may actually only be playing the cynical game of manipulating moral sensibilities. That such feel it necessary to conceal their might and manipulation makes might views shows that they realise — deep down — that they are morally abnormal, or even warped, even monstrous. >> In short, I am specifically speaking to cynically calculated, sophisticated nihilists who are manipulators of the masses -- I here particularly had in mind Shirer's description of Goebels winding himself up in a speech into an apparent fit then sneaking a look at his watch (he was timing his histrionics effects!) -- and I intend to speak of the VIEWS as abnormal. I would think that the general consensus is that such nihilism is abnormal. Ch of course set up and knocked over a strawman, by neatly omitting material context. Game over, Ch. KFkairosfocus
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT
Further to the above, kindly see Boteach in reply to Hitchens. QED. KFkairosfocus
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT
First, thank you for the long and fairly detailed reply. It is interesting and certainly helpful, and yes, makes things clearer, but not quite totally clear.
So, in the sense I am using the term “why is morality binding” is a non-question – it’s a bit like asking “why is adhesive sticky”? If morality wasn’t binding, we wouldn’t call it morality. We would never need to use the word “ought”.
This seems like an attempt at sleight of hand. OF COURSE for morality to be morality it must be binding. So my question should be clearly understood to mean something more like: How did it get sticky, and what keeps it that way? I am driving 120 mph down a city street and you tell me I cannot do it. I tell you that I don't care what you say I can or cannot do, and continue on. You then explain that this isn't just something of your fancy, but there is a law against my actions, with officials that have the authority over me to enforce these rules. That is an example of a binding rule. It's no answer to say it's binding because it's binding. You must answer that it is binding because it comes from a higher authority. Only then is it truly binding. So, where did these binding and "sticky" morals come from? Which is the same as asking how did they get sticky, for if they didn't come from a higher authority, they wouldn't be "sticky".Brent
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT
SB: Thanks. Dr Liddle: I am sorry that you are taking a correction to a major worldview moral hazard, as a personal attack. I cannot help that, but I still have the responsibility to point out that evolutionary materialism is a worldview that has no foundational IS that can objectively ground OUGHT. It thus is forced to ground ought on power games, whether the naked might makes right, or the veiled manipulation makes right variety. Do you remember Mao's dictum that political power comes out of the barrel of a gun? That is where this all ends up, as in the end it is the guns that control the mikes. I find that, consistently, you have failed to acknowledge an equally emphatic point, that there is an implanted candle in us that calls us to the right and exposes the error in such worldviews. Even, in your attempt above, you imply that I am more than blind genetic forces and culturally implanted memes in action, I am a real deciding person. Whence cometh that on evolutionary materialist premises, other than the poof magic of "emergence"? Those who adhere to evo mat views can live by reasonable principles if they listen to their consciences and do not dull them. But history tells us that cultures don't stay that way, nihilist factions soon enough play power games and seize control. As, you should know from being around today's too often dog eat dog law of the jungle academic environment. So, please listen to the warning I have given ever so many times, before it is too late. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT
1 2 3 8

Leave a Reply