—–Hazel writes, “So, no I don’t believe the things that CS Lewis, or anyone, mentions are objective truths. They are human truths, filtered through the human condition, and subject to all the complexity of both our human nature and the circumstances in which we find ourselves.”

That is an honest expression of a deeply held belief, and the contrast is fair enough. C.S. Lewis’s whole point was to prove that morality was not subjective or relative, but objective and universal, not conditional, but absolute. So, Lewis and Hazel disagree. Fine.

Allen, however, claims to agree with Lewis’s proposition. Yet, there is a problem here. To disagree about the origin or source of the natural moral law is to disagree on matters of vital substance. If I understand him correctly, Allen believes that the “natural moral law” is a function of human interaction. But Lewis’s whole point was that the “natural moral law” is that toward which human interaction is to be ordered. It is not something humans create or socially construct; it is something that humans discover through the use of unaided reason.

Also, Allen has stated many times that nothing is absolute, which means that the natural moral law would also have to be conditional. So, I question whether he believes in any kind of objective, unconditional morality appropriate to human nature, though I am sure he can disabuse me of that notion if I am wrong. Meanwhile, I don’t understand why he refers to Lewis’s exposition of the “natural moral law” as his position, since it appears that the only thing they do agree on is description of the code, which is something, but not nearly enough.

If I am being unfair, I will acknowledge my error.

Gil, what happened to your LS-DYNA thread?

It is still available at

http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/news

Gil dismisses simulations of biological evolution which contradicts what Dr. Dembksi, Atom and others stated in the discussion of the Simulation Wars thread.

No one, not a single person, has attempted to rebut the conclusion. Therefore, we must conclude that there is no rebuttal. The materialists are silent; they cannot speak.

which is wrong.

The “materialists” (which is actually wrong, because most of us with opposing views are not materialists) were not silent, and we certainly had things to say in rebuttal. I know Barry doesn’t accept any of what we said as constituting a rebuttal, but it’s inaccurate to say that no one attempted a rebuttal, and that we were silent.

So maybe Barry could could amend the post to be more accurate and fairly stated.

It appears that the “Bleak Conclusions” thread has been closed to comments, but the “Materialist Concede” thread still says that it (Bleak Conclusions) is open for comments if anyone wants to meet your challenge.

That doesn’t seem fair.

Truth is not “provisional.” While it may be incomplete, it is invariably absolute.

“Ascertainable truth is partial, piecemeal, uncertain and difficult.”
Bertrand Russell

Nevertheless, once attained it is absolute. That is what the “well trained” scientist beieves.

“Facts which at first seem improbable, will, even on scant explanation, drop the cloak which has hidden them and stand forth in naked and simple beauty.”
Galileo

Darwinian mysticism is not a good example.

You make authoritarian arguments when you invoke a super-human giver of natural laws and when you say “Someone or something has to call the shots.”

Are Edmond Burke and Russell Kirk among your intellectual icons?

Secular states seem to have thrived in recent history, and isn’t division of power a major factor in the success of parliamentary governments?

I will now retire from this thread, and respectfully leave last words to you.