Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Snowflake Barbarians

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Why did liberal democracy arise in the West and nowhere else?  Because of the influence of Christianity on Western politics.  Consider the most famous expression of classical liberalism the world has ever known, the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . .”

Compare that passage to Galatians 3:28:

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Paul’s message in Galatians was not political.  He was making a theological statement about the equality of Christians in the body of Christ.  Nevertheless, the implications of his argument for a predominantly Christian polity are nothing short of radical.  It took a long time for these implications to sink in, but eventually it dawned on Christian thinkers that certain political institutions that had been taken for granted for all of human history were fundamentally incompatible with Christianity.  Institutions such as slavery.  If my slave is my brother in Christ, how can I continue to hold him in slavery?  There isn’t a good answer to that question, and that is why abolitionism as a political movement arose in Christian Europe, and it is also why for the most part the abolitionists – from Wilberforce in England to Harriet Elisabeth Beecher Stowe in the United States – were Christians making Christian arguments to Christian political communities receptive to such arguments.

As the Declaration expressly states, the Christian idea of equality of all men before God is the foundation of the political idea of the equality of all men under the law.  Don’t take my word for it.  Atheist professor Yuval Noah Harari agrees.  In his international bestseller Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, Harari wrote:  “The idea of equality is inextricably intertwined with the idea of creation.  The Americans got the idea of equality from Christianity, which argues that every person has a divinely created soul, and that all souls are equal before God.”

This passage comes from a longer passage in which Harari argues that the ideas expressed in the Declaration are so much imaginary drivel.  He writes:

Both the Code of Hammurabi and the American Declaration of Independence claim to outline universal and eternal principles of justice, but according to the Americans all people are equal, whereas according to the Babylonians people are decidedly unequal. The Americans would, of course, say that they are right, and that Hammurabi is wrong. Hammurabi, naturally, would retort that he is right, and that the Americans are wrong.  In fact, they are both wrong.  Hammurabi and the American Founding Fathers alike imagined a reality governed by universal and immutable principles of justice, such as equality or hierarchy.  Yet the only place where such universal principles exist is in the fertile imagination of Sapiens, and in the myths they invent and tell one another. These principles have no objective validity.

It is easy for us to accept that the division of people into ‘superiors’ and ‘commoners’ is a figment of the imagination. Yet the idea that all humans are equal is also a myth.  In what sense do all humans equal one another?  Is there any objective reality, outside the human imagination, in which we are truly equal? . . . According to the science of biology, people were not ‘created’. They have evolved. And they certainly did not evolve to be ‘equal’.  The idea of equality is inextricably intertwined with the idea of creation.  The Americans got the idea of equality from Christianity, which argues that every person has a divinely created soul, and that all souls are equal before God.  However, if we do not believe in the Christian myths about God, creation and souls, what does it mean that all people are ‘equal’?  Evolution is based on difference, not on equality. Every person carries a somewhat different genetic code, and is exposed from birth to different environmental influences.  This leads to the development of different qualities that carry with them different chances of survival.  ‘Created equal’ should therefore be translated into ‘evolved differently’.

Just as people were never created, neither, according to the science of biology, is there a ‘Creator’ who ‘endows’ them with anything. There is only a blind evolutionary process, devoid of any purpose, leading to the birth of individuals. ‘Endowed by their creator’ should be translated simply into ‘born’.

Equally, there are no such things as rights in biology. There are only organs, abilities and characteristics.  Birds do not fly because they have a right to fly, but because they have wings. And it’s not true that these organs, abilities and characteristics are ‘unalienable’.  Many of them undergo constant mutations, and may well be completely lost over time.  The ostrich is a bird that lost its ability to fly. So ‘unalienable rights’ should be translated into ‘mutable characteristics’.

And what are the characteristics that evolved in humans? ‘Life’, certainly. But ‘liberty’? There is no such thing in biology. Just like equality, rights and limited liability companies, liberty is something that people invented and that exists only in their imagination. From a biological viewpoint, it is meaningless to say that humans in democratic societies are free, whereas humans in dictatorships are unfree.

Harari’s analysis is remarkably clear-eyed for a materialist atheist.  He admits that under materialism, human dignity does not exist; universal principles of justice and equality do not exist; human rights do not exist; liberty does not exist.  All of these things are social constructs resulting from entirely contingent physical processes.

For a couple of centuries, we in the West have enjoyed a polity based on an attempt to infuse Christian doctrines into our political practice.  While the result has been far from perfect, compared to the great mass of men over the long stretch of history, that effort has produced a civilization that has been, by far, the freest, most prosperous, and most democratic the world has ever known.  Is that civilization sustainable when its Christian foundations are crumbling under a relentless onslaught of metaphysical materialism?

That question brings me to the title of this post.  In recent months, the news has been full of stories about the “Snowflake” phenomenon on college campuses.  We have read story after story about illiberal college students cracking down on anyone attempting to express any view contrary to progressive dogma.  It is not hard to connect the dots here.  The Snowflake movement is an offshoot of political correctness, which is in turn the handmaiden of progressivism, which is fascistic at its root.

Properly understood, the Christian worldview, infused as it is with notions of the fallibility of man, supports an epistemological humility upon which true tolerance and pluralism can rest.  Metaphysical materialism, not so much.  Materialism denies any transcendent morality and the objective existence of justice.  Might makes right.  Is it any wonder that fully 70% of college students support restrictions on the right to free expression?

Lincoln wrote that the principles of the Declaration are “the definitions and axioms of free society” and that the abstract truths in that document would “in all coming days . . . be a rebuke and a stumbling block to the very harbingers of reappearing tyranny and oppression.”

Maybe.  The Declaration is built on a Christian foundation.  But what will happen if that foundation is destroyed when its essential truth claims are denied?  We are about to find out.  Darwin’s great triumph was not so much scientific as it was metaphysical.  The publication of Origin of Species marked the beginning of materialism’s long march though our institutions, especially our universities.  And we have an inkling of what it will look like when that march is finished and materialism reigns triumphant.  It looks like this:

 

melissa_click_c0-17-640-390_s885x516

“I need some muscle over here.”

 

Below I answer some responses that I anticipate.

  1. Liberalism is entirely consistent with materialist metaphysics. We know this because many liberals are materialists.

The term “liberalism” can be confusing.  When I use the term in the post, I mean “classical liberalism,” the political ideology that emphasizes private property, economic liberty, the rule of law, and constitutional guaranties of fundamental rights, such as freedom of religion.  Ironically, in the United States at least, classical liberalism is known as “conservatism.”  Classical liberalism is not to be confused with modern liberalism, which is also known as progressivism, which is a variant of fascism.  Classical liberalism is in fact the exact opposite of modern liberalism.

  1. Everyone knows the Founders were all Deists, not Christians.

No, they were not.  In fact, very few of them were.  Yes, Thomas Jefferson was not an orthodox Christian, and Benjamin Franklin was a deist, but those religious positions were by no means representative of the founders.  The signers of the Declaration itself were, for example, overwhelmingly orthodox Christians (52 of 56).  Jefferson knew he was writing a document that, if it were to accomplish anything, required the assent of an overwhelmingly orthodox Christian audience (both the men who would sign it and the population that would be called to rally around it).  He responded by writing a document that was consciously intended to appeal to that audience.

  1. Slave owners used Biblical arguments.

Yes, they did.  And they were wrong.

  1. Metaphysical materialism did not begin with Darwin.

Of course it didn’t.  Democritus (ca. 400 BC) was probably the first systematic materialists, and the Epicureans based a large part of their philosophy on his ideas.  I did not say that materialism began with Darwin.  I said that the triumph of materialism in formerly Christian western institutions began with Darwin.  On this point, Richard Dawkins is correct.  Atheism predated Darwin, but Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.  As an aside, Dawkins’ s statement was true for Darwin’s fellow Victorians and perhaps for a couple of generations afterward.  In an age where atheist true believers are increasingly required to grit their teeth in the face of the overwhelming evidence of design (particularly at the cellular and molecular level), this is no longer true.  But the damage has been done.  History will show that Darwinism was a bridge between evidence based epistemology and post-modern epistemology.  In other words, by the time it was revealed that the evidence no longer supported Darwin, evidence no longer mattered.

  1. Christians are bad, as the Wars of Religion proved

This argument is based on a flawed conception of Christian doctrine.  Christianity does not teach that Christians are good and non-Christians are bad.  Christianity teachers that everyone is bad and that is why everyone stands in need of Christ’s grace for salvation.  Christianity also teaches that the Holy Spirit works in Christ’s followers to sanctify them and lead them to good works.  From a Christian perspective, it is entirely unsurprising that evil men will start unjust wars using religion as a pretext.  It is also entirely unsurprising that atheists such as Stalin and Mao will kill tens of millions in a quixotic quest for earthly atheist political utopia.  For the Christian, history is one long blood-soaked lesson in the truth of doctrine of the depravity of man, whether that depravity is cloaked in perverted religion or materialist madness.

  1. “Materialism” is not a thing (or no one has believed in Materialism since the 1800s).

Here I use the term as a shorthand for a metaphysical monism that denies the existence of God.  If you prefer physicalism, naturalism, priority monism, etc., OK.

Comments
F/N: Again, we have largely gone off on tangents. I refocus the OP, noting the conspicuous silence on making a cogent reply:
Why did liberal democracy arise in the West and nowhere else? Because of the influence of Christianity on Western politics. Consider the most famous expression of classical liberalism the world has ever known, the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . .” Compare that passage to Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Paul’s message in Galatians was not political. He was making a theological statement about the equality of Christians in the body of Christ. Nevertheless, the implications of his argument for a predominantly Christian polity are nothing short of radical. It took a long time for these implications to sink in, but eventually it dawned on Christian thinkers that certain political institutions that had been taken for granted for all of human history were fundamentally incompatible with Christianity. Institutions such as slavery. If my slave is my brother in Christ, how can I continue to hold him in slavery? There isn’t a good answer to that question, and that is why abolitionism as a political movement arose in Christian Europe, and it is also why for the most part the abolitionists – from Wilberforce in England to Harriet Elisabeth Beecher Stowe in the United States – were Christians making Christian arguments to Christian political communities receptive to such arguments. As the Declaration expressly states, the Christian idea of equality of all men before God is the foundation of the political idea of the equality of all men under the law. Don’t take my word for it. Atheist professor Yuval Noah Harari agrees. In his international bestseller Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, Harari wrote: “The idea of equality is inextricably intertwined with the idea of creation. The Americans got the idea of equality from Christianity, which argues that every person has a divinely created soul, and that all souls are equal before God.” This passage comes from a longer passage in which Harari argues that the ideas expressed in the Declaration are so much imaginary drivel . . . . Harari’s analysis is remarkably clear-eyed for a materialist atheist. He admits that under materialism, human dignity does not exist; universal principles of justice and equality do not exist; human rights do not exist; liberty does not exist. All of these things are social constructs resulting from entirely contingent physical processes. For a couple of centuries, we in the West have enjoyed a polity based on an attempt to infuse Christian doctrines into our political practice. While the result has been far from perfect, compared to the great mass of men over the long stretch of history, that effort has produced a civilization that has been, by far, the freest, most prosperous, and most democratic the world has ever known. Is that civilization sustainable when its Christian foundations are crumbling under a relentless onslaught of metaphysical materialism? That question brings me to the title of this post. In recent months, the news has been full of stories about the “Snowflake” phenomenon on college campuses. We have read story after story about illiberal college students cracking down on anyone attempting to express any view contrary to progressive dogma. It is not hard to connect the dots here. The Snowflake movement is an offshoot of political correctness, which is in turn the handmaiden of progressivism, which is fascistic at its root. Properly understood, the Christian worldview, infused as it is with notions of the fallibility of man, supports an epistemological humility upon which true tolerance and pluralism can rest. Metaphysical materialism, not so much. Materialism denies any transcendent morality and the objective existence of justice. Might makes right. Is it any wonder that fully 70% of college students support restrictions on the right to free expression? Lincoln wrote that the principles of the Declaration are “the definitions and axioms of free society” and that the abstract truths in that document would “in all coming days . . . be a rebuke and a stumbling block to the very harbingers of reappearing tyranny and oppression.” Maybe. The Declaration is built on a Christian foundation. But what will happen if that foundation is destroyed when its essential truth claims are denied? We are about to find out. Darwin’s great triumph was not so much scientific as it was metaphysical. The publication of Origin of Species marked the beginning of materialism’s long march though our institutions, especially our universities. And we have an inkling of what it will look like when that march is finished and materialism reigns triumphant [as in, not good at all] . . . . Below I answer some responses that I anticipate. Liberalism is entirely consistent with materialist metaphysics. We know this because many liberals are materialists. The term “liberalism” can be confusing. When I use the term in the post, I mean “classical liberalism,” the political ideology that emphasizes private property, economic liberty, the rule of law, and constitutional guaranties of fundamental rights, such as freedom of religion. Ironically, in the United States at least, classical liberalism is known as “conservatism.” Classical liberalism is not to be confused with modern liberalism, which is also known as progressivism, which is a variant of fascism. Classical liberalism is in fact the exact opposite of modern liberalism. Everyone knows the Founders were all Deists, not Christians. No, they were not. In fact, very few of them were. Yes, Thomas Jefferson was not an orthodox Christian, and Benjamin Franklin was a deist, but those religious positions were by no means representative of the founders. The signers of the Declaration itself were, for example, overwhelmingly orthodox Christians (52 of 56). Jefferson knew he was writing a document that, if it were to accomplish anything, required the assent of an overwhelmingly orthodox Christian audience (both the men who would sign it and the population that would be called to rally around it). He responded by writing a document that was consciously intended to appeal to that audience. Slave owners used Biblical arguments. Yes, they did. And they were wrong. Metaphysical materialism did not begin with Darwin. Of course it didn’t. Democritus (ca. 400 BC) was probably the first systematic materialists, and the Epicureans based a large part of their philosophy on his ideas. I did not say that materialism began with Darwin. I said that the triumph of materialism in formerly Christian western institutions began with Darwin. On this point, Richard Dawkins is correct. Atheism predated Darwin, but Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. As an aside, Dawkins’ s statement was true for Darwin’s fellow Victorians and perhaps for a couple of generations afterward. In an age where atheist true believers are increasingly required to grit their teeth in the face of the overwhelming evidence of design (particularly at the cellular and molecular level), this is no longer true. But the damage has been done. History will show that Darwinism was a bridge between evidence based epistemology and post-modern epistemology. In other words, by the time it was revealed that the evidence no longer supported Darwin, evidence no longer mattered. Christians are bad, as the Wars of Religion proved This argument is based on a flawed conception of Christian doctrine. Christianity does not teach that Christians are good and non-Christians are bad. Christianity teachers that everyone is bad and that is why everyone stands in need of Christ’s grace for salvation. Christianity also teaches that the Holy Spirit works in Christ’s followers to sanctify them and lead them to good works. From a Christian perspective, it is entirely unsurprising that evil men will start unjust wars using religion as a pretext. It is also entirely unsurprising that atheists such as Stalin and Mao will kill tens of millions in a quixotic quest for earthly atheist political utopia. For the Christian, history is one long blood-soaked lesson in the truth of doctrine of the depravity of man, whether that depravity is cloaked in perverted religion or materialist madness. “Materialism” is not a thing (or no one has believed in Materialism since the 1800s). Here I use the term as a shorthand for a metaphysical monism that denies the existence of God. If you prefer physicalism, naturalism, priority monism, etc., OK.
KFkairosfocus
January 23, 2017
January
01
Jan
23
23
2017
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT
J-M: You are free to think what you want, but not to imagine that is the last word. To give just one small point as to why your understanding is not anywhere near a view taken seriously, I clip Ps 139:
Psalm 139English Standard Version (ESV) Search Me, O God, and Know My Heart To the choirmaster. A Psalm of David. 139 O Lord, you have searched me and known me! 2 You know when I sit down and when I rise up; you discern my thoughts from afar. 3 You search out my path and my lying down and are acquainted with all my ways. 4 Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O Lord, you know it altogether. 5 You hem me in, behind and before, and lay your hand upon me. 6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high; I cannot attain it. 7 Where shall I go from your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from your presence? 8 If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there! 9 If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, 10 even there your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me. 11 If I say, “Surely the darkness shall cover me, and the light about me be night,” 12 even the darkness is not dark to you; the night is bright as the day, for darkness is as light with you. 13 For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb. 14 I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.[a] Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. 15 My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. 16 Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them . . . [ESV]
KFkairosfocus
January 23, 2017
January
01
Jan
23
23
2017
03:58 AM
3
03
58
AM
PDT
My view is that God is indeed "maximally great," but chooses to limit his power to make room for free will. I also believe that God knows the future without affecting our free will. It's not inconceivable to me that God can freely move forward and backward in time. Maybe that's why God refers to Himself as "I am," and "the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end." Some prophesied events in the Bible are predetermined, others are conditional, and some are flexible. For example * Jesus said it was inevitable that the Son of Man be betrayed, but . . . (predetermined) * he said, woe will come to the person through whom the betrayal comes (flexible) * Let me wildly speculate that had the majority of Jews in Israel accepted Jesus as the Christ (Yeshua ha Mashiach) in 33 C.E., Nero would likely have been the prophesied Antichrist, and Daniel's prophetic 69th seven would have immediately been followed by the 70th seven with the return of Messiah. My point is that Daniel's prophecy seems to allow for such a possibility. (conditional) Finally, let me emphasize that while these views are based on things written in the Bible, they cannot be taken as anything but speculation, OK? -QQuerius
January 22, 2017
January
01
Jan
22
22
2017
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT
Querius, Maybe God can step out of time. In fact, if God actually created the space-time of our universe, then that is pretty reasonable to assume. I like the idea but why would someone who created time be restricted by time? If time is not an illusion in the first place... I speculated that God has the ability to look into the future selectively or He has the ability to intervene to make the future events turn out the way He needs to. How else would the prophecies turn out to be true? Any thoughts?J-Mac
January 22, 2017
January
01
Jan
22
22
2017
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT
Querius: That means that on earth, God’s will is NOT being done!
Obviously not, I would like to add. A maximally great God would indeed be "propelling all things", however this is obviously not the case.
Querius: All I would add is that the primary mechanism that God has created is free will. That, of necessity, means that God chooses to limit his power.
I fully agree.Origenes
January 22, 2017
January
01
Jan
22
22
2017
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT
Querius, Nope. See my response to Seversky in #68. And #80 is also relevant Nope what? You are also speculating # 68 and #80. What makes your speculations different from mine?J-Mac
January 22, 2017
January
01
Jan
22
22
2017
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT
KF: Origines, the matter stands as I have already pointed out.
Same here. And you have not addressed my arguments.Origenes
January 22, 2017
January
01
Jan
22
22
2017
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT
J-Mac @ 96 speculated
God also didn’t know that Adam and Eve would sin. If He had known in advance, wouldn’t He be responsible for all the suffering and injustice their sin brought upon mankind?
Nope. See my response to Seversky in #68. And #80 is also relevant. -QQuerius
January 22, 2017
January
01
Jan
22
22
2017
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT
kairosfocus J-M: Do you not see that the point in the narrative is for Adam to acknowledge his status of hiding from God — rather than to inform God as to his unknown location? Likewise, to acknowledge his state of disobedience? I desagree. I've read the total account from Genesis 3:1-16 in several translations and different languages and it looks like God causally walked through the Garden of Eden not knowing what had happened... Besides, if God is omniscient and all knowing, He had already known that Adam and Eve would sin and was just staging the whole thing just to fool us while billions of angels were watching and Satan the first one to point that out to Adam and Eve that it is a set up and they are doomed to fail. How loving that would be on the part of God? This doesn't make any sense!J-Mac
January 22, 2017
January
01
Jan
22
22
2017
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT
J-Mac @ 96 It's an allegory.mike1962
January 22, 2017
January
01
Jan
22
22
2017
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT
F/N: This too: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/misunderstanding-the-ontological-argument KFkairosfocus
January 22, 2017
January
01
Jan
22
22
2017
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT
F/N: I again point to a start point: http://bpa.ac.uk/answers/files/The%20idea%20of%20God.pdf KFkairosfocus
January 22, 2017
January
01
Jan
22
22
2017
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT
DfO, the analogy is far from original to me. KFkairosfocus
January 22, 2017
January
01
Jan
22
22
2017
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT
J-M: Do you not see that the point in the narrative is for Adam to acknowledge his status of hiding from God -- rather than to inform God as to his unknown location? Likewise, to acknowledge his state of disobedience? KF PS: Origines, the matter stands as I have already pointed out.kairosfocus
January 22, 2017
January
01
Jan
22
22
2017
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT
‘Is God omniscient, ALL Knowing?’ God could not be omniscient, ALL Knowing because God didn't know where Adam was hiding: Genesis 3:9 "9 Then the LORD God called to the man, and said to him, "Where are you?" and that Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit and consequently sinned. Genesis 3:11 "And He (God) said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?" God also didn't know that Adam and Eve would sin. If He had known in advance, wouldn't He be responsible for all the suffering and injustice their sin brought upon mankind?J-Mac
January 22, 2017
January
01
Jan
22
22
2017
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT
KF, My concerns are easily resolved by God not being a 'maximally great being', God not propelling ALL things and God not occupying each and every single part of the totality of being. I gave you some pointers, try to work it out. The most important thing is to refrain from inappropriate attempts to understand God in time space contexts. - - - - Dean_from_Ohio @93 Unless the grandmaster is making my moves for me, it is incoherent to say that the grandmaster propels all moves.Origenes
January 22, 2017
January
01
Jan
22
22
2017
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT
Origines, I gave you pointers to the ontological background you need to resolve concerns you raised. KFkairosfocus
January 22, 2017
January
01
Jan
22
22
2017
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus @91 I’m going to ignore most of the things you wrote, because they don’t address anything I have said.
Going beyond, that God could create agents that albeit contingent are self-moved and capable of responsible freedom is not patent nonsense.
Well, I am afraid it is in conjunction with a ‘maximally great God’ who propels all things.
Your attempt to dismiss God as being everywhere and “every-when” reveals a perception of physicality and the implicit premise of no two entities A and B that are physical being present at given locations: ai,xi,ti vs bi, xi, ti, in an X-OR pattern.
I am responding to the attempt to understand God in the context of space and time, which is, as I have argued, incoherent.
That is precisely what “in him we live, move and have our being” corrects.
I’m afraid, as I have argued, it does no such thing.
he propels the world …
He does not propel the things of the world that I propel. Okay. You remain unresponsive to my arguments. There is no point in repeating myself again and again. Thank you for your time.Origenes
January 22, 2017
January
01
Jan
22
22
2017
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT
Origines, Pardon, but there is some background you are missing, starting with possible vs impossible being and of the former, contingent vs necessary. Also, nothing, sense non-being. Start with a fire. It is a contingent, possible being. It depends on external, enabling causes [heat, fuel, oxidiser, viability of a combustion chain reaction]. It begins, it can cease. There is a cluster of factors that are each causally necessary for a fire to be -- block or kill it by removing, e.g. oxidiser. Likewise, certain clusters of causal factors are sufficient for a fire to be; any such sufficient cluster must have in it all necessary factors. (As a simple example, fires can have accelerants or retardants that affect them; in the case of Halon, by interfering with the chain reaction.) By contrast, try to imagine a world in which two-ness . . . having A and ~A [NOT-A] . . . does not exist. Not possible. Twoness is necessary and foundational to any possible world. It cannot cease from being, and it has no beginning. To understand this, go to a square circle as a proposed or candidate being. Core characteristics stand in mutual contradiction and such is impossible, a non-being. And nothingness is just this, non-being. Which, has no causal capacity. So, were there ever utter nothing, exactly that would forever obtain. So, we now see that if a world self-evidently is, something -- a world root -- always was. Something, that is INDEPENDENT of external, enabling factors. Were that not the case, there would be possible worlds in which that root is not. We already see where several key facets of an eternal, world-root being come to bear: necessary, thus without beginning and without possibility of end. More can be said, but this is enough -- especially given the tangential nature. An eternal, necessary, world-root being is required to ground contingent beings in the world. (And no, an infinite regress of contingent beings is infeasible for many good reasons, not least the need to span an endless, transfinite range in finite stage steps.) Such a being is the causal root of our world, an actual, possible, instantiated world. "in him we live and move and have our being" and "upholding all things by his word of power" are deeply insightful, and accurate. But we have not got to a Creator yet. Further to this, reality is not just physical, we have to address responsible rational, significantly free and intelligent, morally governed beings such as we are. This points to the only level where such can be grounded, the same world root level. (Otherwise, we run into the IS-OUGHT gap.) As already noted, after centuries, there is but one serious candidate (and note, this is not a proof, it is warrant per inference to best explanation capable of rising to moral certainty): the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being; worthy of loyalty as well as our reasonable, responsible service in light of our evident nature. More could be said, but this should be enough to see that we are not talking things that are hopelessly, foolishly incoherent. Going beyond, that God could create agents that albeit contingent are self-moved and capable of responsible freedom is not patent nonsense. Indeed, it allows us to be free enough to be rational and virtuous. If we can reason, know, love and be responsible, we have to be sufficiently free. By contrast, if we lack such dimensions of freedom, not only does virtue collapse, but it carries down with it responsible rationality, capability to create logically grounded knowledge and more. Your attempt to dismiss God as being everywhere and "every-when" reveals a perception of physicality and the implicit premise of no two entities A and B that are physical being present at given locations: ai,xi,ti vs bi, xi, ti, in an X-OR pattern. That is precisely what "in him we live, move and have our being" corrects. God directly enables xi, ti to exist, and bi depends on the active presence and power of God as ai to be there. We are contingent, he is necessary and sustaining, he propels the world, allowing the space and time for contingent agents to live, think, decide and act. Ultimately, he will bring all things to his end. For this it may help to think in terms of going up as novices in chess against a grandmaster. We freely choose our moves but the active action of the Master makes the outcome certain. I have only gone this far because it enables us to ponder freedom. And equality -- being equally in the image of God and equally of quasi-infinite value. KFkairosfocus
January 22, 2017
January
01
Jan
22
22
2017
03:54 AM
3
03
54
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus @89
God by contrast is by core definition necessary (and BTW, thus also inherently eternal) …
As Aquinas’ first cause arguments show, there are no explanatory contexts, external to God, wrt God’s existence. There is nothing outside of God that is fundamental to his existence. There is nothing outside and /or prior to God that explains his existence — including the contexts time and space. IOWs God’s existence cannot be understood in terms of time and space. For this reason, it is incoherent to claim that God is ‘eternal’ or ‘everywhere’. These terms are the result of unfounded attempts to capture God’s existence by non-existent explanatory contexts external to his existence. Similarly, the number 45 is not ‘red’, ‘green’ or ‘all colors’. Coloration is simply the wrong context for understanding numbers.
This, does not contradict our distinct identity, it sustains it; our temporal, embodied being, b1, b2, b3 . . . bn at points x1, x2, x3 . . . xn in succession at times t1, t2 . . . tn thus does not and cannot displace the active eternal presence of God.
When I speak of my existence, I’m not at all referring to my body.
So the sense of our presence and that of God’s presence are not in contradiction, they refer to different dimensions of being.
Surely, God’s presence and our presence are not in contradiction. However, the ill-founded concept of a God who is everywhere, who occupies each and every single part of the totality of being, is in contradiction with our presence as rational free responsible persons. Obviously, such a ‘maximally great’ God would not allow for the existence of anything distinct from him.
Ours, derivative; his the root of there being relevant time, place and substance.
A free responsible rational person implies independent existence; that is a prerequisite to freedom, responsibility, rationality and personhood.
… the ensouled are understood as self-moving, i.e. reflexive, able to act on oneself thence be a first cause in the world — deciding and acting to initiate chains of events, not passively and wholly determined by prior states, and/or in the blind grip of chance and mechanical necessity.
You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have a ‘maximally great God’ — who is the totality of all being, “propelling all things” — and ‘self-moving agents’.Origenes
January 22, 2017
January
01
Jan
22
22
2017
03:11 AM
3
03
11
AM
PDT
Origines, I answered in outline and pointed back to the actual theme of the thread. I add, a tad more towards conceptual clarification; e.g., agency implies significant, responsible and rational freedom of action with consequences -- and, it is necessary for there to be reasoned discussion. From The Laws on, the ensouled are understood as self-moving, i.e. reflexive, able to act on oneself thence be a first cause in the world -- deciding and acting to initiate chains of events, not passively and wholly determined by prior states, and/or in the blind grip of chance and mechanical necessity. We are contingent, as in not world-framing necessary beings "there" in all possible worlds. God by contrast is by core definition necessary (and BTW, thus also inherently eternal) -- so that he is (as a serious candidate world root) impossible or else actual. The claim, impossibility, has never been seriously substantiated; and the moreso as the problem of evils collapsed. God's active, enabling, aware, sustaining presence is constitutive of there being space, time and matter, everywhere and every when. Thus our current, embodied existence is in him, sustained everywhere, every moment in our space-time domain by his powerful word. As an analogy ponder how the invisible yet iron principles of the logic of structure and quantity [= Mathematics] affect everywhere, every moment and every material thing, manifesting the power of abstract mathematical realities in the familiar empirical world . . . and ponder in that context One revealed as Logos; rational communicative reality Himself. This, does not contradict our distinct identity, it sustains it; our temporal, embodied being, b1, b2, b3 . . . bn at points x1, x2, x3 . . . xn in succession at times t1, t2 . . . tn thus does not and cannot displace the active eternal presence of God. So the sense of our presence and that of God's presence are not in contradiction, they refer to different dimensions of being. Ours, derivative; his the root of there being relevant time, place and substance. KFkairosfocus
January 21, 2017
January
01
Jan
21
21
2017
09:03 PM
9
09
03
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus 86@ Unresponsive.Origenes
January 21, 2017
January
01
Jan
21
21
2017
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT
Origines, yes, God enables you to be as a contingent, ensouled agent. That God is actively present and enabling you to be does not contradict that you are at a there and are a who distinct from God. I suspect you may need to work through some worldviews analysis. KFkairosfocus
January 21, 2017
January
01
Jan
21
21
2017
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus @81
… all things were created and exist through Him [that is, by His activity]. … in Him we live and move and exist …
I am a responsible free rational person. I exist. Now, I hold that I would not and cannot exist without God. And it could even be that I live inside God, a Paul said. But nevertheless, I am not God and God is not me. This means that there is something (me) that is not God. He is close by, at least I like to think so, but in the sea of existence I occupy a place that is mine and no one else’s. Therefor, God is not everywhere.
… propelling all things …
No, I exist and by my free will and under my responsibility I propel things too.Origenes
January 21, 2017
January
01
Jan
21
21
2017
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT
Go to church.kairosfocus
January 21, 2017
January
01
Jan
21
21
2017
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT
In some cultures, singing is what everyone does in their family and local community. It's a means of bonding and sharing a communal message. As societies become more individualistic, they lose the ability to sing together, they lose communal and familial songs and they consume only recorded sounds from celebrity singers - often in a very individualistic way (note the number of people walking around with earbuds connected to ipods, etc). But that's the celebrity culture where certain icons represent the desires and aspirations of the public.Silver Asiatic
January 21, 2017
January
01
Jan
21
21
2017
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
Note: the singer of talent and star power is a scarce provider, especially if s/he carries a resonating message. To consume, a concert or a CD etc is highly affordable. Add up royalties across millions and you get serious money. The nurse cannot sell services like that, and so will not make as much financially. Though, I bet proportionately far more entertainers are psycho-social basket cases than nurses. But also, the average singer likely makes a lot less than the average nurse. KFkairosfocus
January 21, 2017
January
01
Jan
21
21
2017
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT
Origines, Pardon a citation from Paul's speech before the Athenian elites c 50 AD, at Mars Hill:
Ac 17: Paul at Athens 16 Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was greatly angered when he saw that the city was full of idols. 17 So he had discussions in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Gentiles, and in the market place day after day with any who happened to be there. 18 And some of the [b]Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to engage in conversation with him. And some said, “What could this idle babbler [with his eclectic, scrap-heap learning] have in mind to say?” Others said, “He seems to be a proclaimer of strange deities”—because he was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection. 19 They took him and brought him to the [c]Areopagus (Hill of Ares, the Greek god of war), saying, “May we know what this [strange] new teaching is which you are proclaiming? 20 For you are bringing some startling and strange things to our ears; so we want to know what they mean.” 21 (Now all the Athenians and the foreigners visiting there used to spend their [leisure] time in nothing other than telling or hearing something new.) Sermon on Mars Hill 22 So Paul, standing in the center of the Areopagus, said: “Men of Athens, I observe [with every turn I make throughout the city] that you are very religious and devout in all respects. 23 Now as I was going along and carefully looking at your objects of worship, I came to an altar with this inscription: ‘TO AN [d]UNKNOWN GOD.’ Therefore what you already worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. 24 The God who created the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; 25 nor is He [e]served by human hands, as though He needed anything, because it is He who gives to all [people] life and breath and all things. 26 And He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their lands and territories. 27 This was so that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grasp for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us. 28 For in Him we live and move and exist [that is, in Him we actually have our being], as even some of [f]your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’ 29 So then, being God’s children, we should not think that the Divine Nature (deity) is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination or skill of man. 30 Therefore God overlooked and disregarded the former ages of ignorance; but now He commands all people everywhere to repent [that is, to change their old way of thinking, to regret their past sins, and to seek God’s purpose for their lives], 31 because He has set a day when He will judge the inhabited world in righteousness by a Man whom He has appointed and destined for that task, and He has provided credible proof to everyone by raising Him from the dead.” 32 Now when they heard [the term] resurrection from the dead, [g]some mocked and sneered; but others said, “We will hear from you again about this matter.” 33 So Paul left them. 34 But some men joined him and believed; among them were Dionysius, [a judge] of the Council of Areopagus, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them. [AMP]
His Epistle to the Colossians, perhaps 11 years later, amplifies some of these thoughts:
Col 1: 15 He [Christ] is the exact living image [the essential manifestation] of the unseen God [the visible representation of the invisible], the firstborn [the preeminent one, the sovereign, and the originator] of all creation. 16 For [d]by Him all things were created in heaven and on earth, [things] visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities; all things were created and exist through Him [that is, by His activity] and for Him. 17 And He Himself existed and is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. [His is the controlling, cohesive force of the universe.] 18 He is also the head [the life-source and leader] of the body, the [e]church; and He is the beginning, [f]the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will occupy the first place [He will stand supreme and be preeminent] in everything. 19 For it pleased the Father for all the fullness [of deity—the sum total of His essence, all His perfection, powers, and attributes] to dwell [permanently] in Him (the Son), 20 and through [the intervention of] the Son to reconcile all things to Himself, making peace [with believers] through the blood of His cross; through Him, [I say,] whether things on earth or things in heaven. 21 And although you were at one time estranged and alienated and hostile-minded [toward Him], participating in evil things, 22 yet Christ has now reconciled you [to God] in His [g]physical body through death, in order to present you before the Father holy and blameless and beyond reproach— 23 [and He will do this] if you continue in the faith, well-grounded and steadfast, and not shifting away from the [confident] hope [that is a result] of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed [h]in all creation under heaven [AMP]
The opening words of the Epistle to Hebrews, also add to the force:
heb 1:1 God, having spoken to the fathers long ago in [the voices and writings of] the prophets in many separate revelations [each of which set forth a portion of the truth], and in many ways, 2 has in these last days spoken [with finality] to us in [the person of One who is by His character and nature] His Son [namely Jesus], whom He appointed heir and lawful owner of all things, through whom also He created the universe [that is, the universe as a space-time-matter continuum]. 3 The Son is the radiance and only expression of the glory of [our awesome] God [reflecting God’s [a]Shekinah glory, the Light-being, the brilliant light of the divine], and the exact representation and perfect imprint of His [Father’s] essence, and upholding and maintaining and propelling all things [the entire physical and spiritual universe] by His powerful word [carrying the universe along to its predetermined goal]. When He [Himself and no other] had [by offering Himself on the cross as a sacrifice for sin] accomplished purification from sins and established our freedom from guilt, He sat down [revealing His completed work] at the right hand of the Majesty on high [revealing His Divine authority], 4 having become as much superior to angels, since He has inherited a more excellent and glorious [b]name than they [that is, Son—the name above all names]. [AMP]
God, in the Christian tradition, is the root of being, the creator of the cosmos and its upholder, actively present and provident every-where, every-when. His active, sustaining, enabling word of power is what we dimly detect in laws of nature. Our whole existence is pervaded by his undergirding active presence and support, so Paul speaks in bridging terms, quoting Greek poets, in him we live, move and have our being, we are his offspring. So, God's presence is not of the same order as ours, indeed our -- physical and mental, conscious, moral -- presence depends crucially on his prior presence, which frames and upholds a world. I do not need to elaborate on how there must be a necessary being root of reality. The debate, is of what character, and a crucial insight comes when we see that we are morally governed and find ourselves accountable to truth and right reason, i.e. the moral government that obtains for our order of existence pervades the whole world of thought and intelligent, volitional action. So, that necessary being root must be able to at once be an IS and the root of all OUGHT. As I have often pointed out at UD, there is just one serious candidate, after centuries of debates: the inherently good creator God, a necessary [thus eternal] and maximally great being, worthy of loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing good in accord with our evident nature. And no, such is not incoherent, never mind how our gaps of understanding can lead us to think such. KFkairosfocus
January 21, 2017
January
01
Jan
21
21
2017
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT
Well, said! All I would add is that the primary mechanism that God has created is free will. That, of necessity, means that God chooses to limit his power. Think of the implications of what Jesus taught his disciples to pray: ". . . Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." That means that on earth, God's will is NOT being done! So whose will is being done? Humans, angels, fallen angels, and God all can make choices and act, and free will is maintained. This means that God does not prevent hurtful and even horrific choices, however God will sometimes mitigate the effects. Everyone dies in the end and then there's the judgement. Fortunately, God provided a way out for those choosing to confess their depravity, choosing to let go of their selfish ways, and choosing to accept God's love. -QQuerius
January 21, 2017
January
01
Jan
21
21
2017
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT
Sev
Personally, I find it obscene that one woman who is a marginally talented singer can earn more in a year than a nurse can make in a lifetime of hard and often unpleasant work. Society as a whole disagrees with me. They show which they really value by what they pay each.
Aside from many other controversial or debatable points (as I already argued on your idea of God and justice) I found the above interesting. You're pointing to a sense of justice and value - an appreciation of a hard life of sacrifice for the benefit of others, as well as the lack of care shown by society towards the same. The misplaced glory given to entertainers - it really says something about what people treasure the most. But I think that leaves you in a quandary. What really matters in the materialistic/atheist life? Whatever life is in the here and now. That's it. Is there something good in life? If so, should you miss out on it? There's only one chance. Now we look at a life of sacrifice. This means putting aside much of the "good things" that materialist/atheist life has to offer. It's not only choosing hardships and deprivation - but as you said, not even getting the financial rewards commensurate with the value offered for others. Why? I hate to say it but the atheistic/materialist life points directly to selfishness. It points to the half-talented pop star, reaping millions of dollars and living the glam life -- as an ideal. That's the target to aim for. There's only one chance. The pop star got all the sex, all the praise, all the money, all the excitement, even all the power over other people that can be had in this life. Everybody else who didn't get that, missed out forever. In that scenario, the nurse is foolish. She risks her life treating patients with contagious diseases. She works long and hard, often underappreciated even by the doctors, and then as you say, getting far less reward financially.Silver Asiatic
January 21, 2017
January
01
Jan
21
21
2017
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply