Commenting on another post, Fellow Vigilante, Reed has posted a You tube Vid of Ray Comfort’s ‘Banana argument’ for the existence of God.
I am not sure whether he posted it in Ernest or in jest, as even though the argument has some merit, Ray’s particular version has been debunked.
(Banana’s come in various shapes and sizes)
As far as simple arguements go, I prefer the Peanut butter argument… Because in spite of ridicule from Atheists, it rests on absolutely Rock solid science, and so Atheism have no valid arguements against it.
A similar argument is that when we feel ill and go to the doctor… (even atheist doctors who claim to believe in Evolution) they never diagnose “a new life form has spontaneously generated in your Gut”…even when they cant find the cause of your illness.
In deed if you told your doctor that you were sick and believe a new life form had spontaneously generated in your body they would burst out laughing! They certainly would not give you any credence.
Why?
Because Spontaneous generation is scientifically speaking… an absurdity!
Louis Pasteur…’The Father of Micro Biology’
His Experiment.
Louis Parteurs refutation of spontaneous Generation has never been overthrown, never contravened…. And this is why any claims to a spontaneously generated disease would be considered ridiculous!
(likewise Ridicule would be forthcomming if you insisted that your jar of Peanut butter had been spoiled by a spontaniously generated organism)
Spontaneous generation is an atheistic myth… a naturalistic superstition.
Pasteur so utterly devestated the notion of spontanious generation, that it is an absolute embarrassment to the Atheist naturalist position that they have actually abandoned using the term, insist it has nothing to do with Atheism, and now talk of ‘Abiogenesis’…. HA HA HA!
Despite their protests.
Despite their claims to be applying more modern ideas…It’s the same Myth in a new Skirt!
And Pasteurs Law stll holds good against it!
*This surely ranks as one of the Greatest self delusions of our age!*
The reality is advances in Technology and general Knowledge about single cells has indeed grown immensely yet this advance has only served to magnify, not deminish the problems for naturalism because modern geneticist today stagger at the super complexity of living cells.
Modern apprehension of the complexity of the cell exposes the naivety of the early Naturalistic Naturalists whom assumed single celled life forms would prove to be quite simple… something easily imagined to be able to form by happenstance.
Thus with progress over the past century the evidence has been contradicting this hypothesis.
Today evolutionists must stagger at the complexity which must be achieved via self assembly …of even the most simple possible life form.
Geneticists have been busy paring away at the DNA from within the most simple life form they could find to determine what genes within that cell were essential for ‘life’. Dr Craig Venter and a team of Geneticists attempted to use the smallest genome they could find as a template for the construction of artificial DNA.
They However switched to a more complex genome to take advantage existing experience in transplating this type whole… and after years of effort, filled with failures, they syntetically replicated a perfect copy of that genome and placed inside the membrane of a cell which had been stripped of it’s DNA and to their great joy the cell apparently replicated itself…
His own explaination is here:
In the link above *He talks about the painstaking efforts… the perfect accuracy required…1 error in an over one million base pairs was enough to render their genome useless!
Now what must be appreciated in respect to our topic is that just achieving this much… engineering the simplest chains of Synthetic DNA, was considered a spectacular feat… a Historic Milestone of science and Technology!
And they did not create life but used a pre-existing cell ‘body’.
Contrary to what Atheists and Evolutionists claim these experiments and modern advances in genetic science make the Idea of spontaneous generation even less plausible… not more!
That Blind Natural forces are supposed to have done much more that what Dr Venter and his team of geneticists have achieved Beggars rational belief!
In deed Dr Venter has demonstrated the need for Genius and care, and purposeful manipulation to produce a technological wonder which in no way would or could form via nature or chance.
In creating and installing the Synthetic DNA into this cell Dr Venter has assumed the Role of God!
Pasteur has never been given his due.
‘Pasteur’s Law’ is absent from all biological text books… why?
Because it utterly undoes the entire edifice of Naturalistic evolution!
It is however a rock solid Law of Biology.
Mendels Law also does this and yet because they have not been able to overthrow it with ‘Darwin’s Law’… (Because the is no such thing as Darwin’s Law)… they simply ignore the real implications of Mendel’s Law and pretend that it is a mechanism for carrying successful evolutionary traits into future generations!
Thus while Medical science progresses with leaps and bounds because it does not rely on evolutionary theory, The religion of many biologists is corrupting the academic community… as ‘specialisation’/ the division of labour in scientific research and expertise means that academics in all the other disciplines accept by blind faith that Evolutionary Biology is rock solid… because they trust the biological fraternity …as experts in their own field… ie The Physicist rarely feels competent to question the publications of the Biologist… even when their claims appear to contravene the known tendencies of physics…in particular the tendency towards entropy. They assume the biologists are applying rigorous scientific method… and being Naturalists… it is assumed that Naturalists are brutality clinical and incapable of fostering let alone imposing personal prejudices onto raw data. Ie the Naturalist is automatically assumed to be of higher scientific calibre…more objective, and thus a superior interpreter of Evidence and data to that of the ‘mysticism’ which haunts the theistic mind.
Thus being of Naturalistic faith, and specialisation in the various fields of science has all worked to protect and perpetuate the myth that Evolution has scientifically validity… and that Creationism is ‘unscientific’.
This is a Joke!
Tim Wikiriwhi
King James Bible believer/ Dispensationalist/ Libertarian.
Some surfers may wonder at the title of this blogpost.
Does it reflect malice on the part of the Author?
I would say it does! Some malice can be justified, and there are so many reasons to dislike the irrationality of the bulk of Objectivists… those whom emulate their Icon to the greatest degree.
I must take care not to collectivize all Objectivists into one lump, as this type of oversimplification is a great error to be avoided … way too mechanistic… and thankfully humans are not machines…and thus there are always exceptions which must be given the credit they deserve… Such Mechanistic irrationalism is endemic to Objectivism… most believing such Ideas that “All Muslims are Evil”… “All Christians hate Gays”… Etc, yet there is a moderate minority who avoid this error, and I give these Libertarians their due.
I am angry about the amount of effort the Objectivists put into undermining the Campaign of Ron Paul, whom was by Far the best hope for saving America from Economic ruin and for implementing Libertarian reforms across the board.
The source of this Irrational hatred has been hidden to a large degree and has left many people wondering why Objectivists hate Ron Paul..
Quote:
“It’s odd to me that so many Objectivists dislike Ron Paul. Of all the mainstream presidential candidates out there, his platform is by far the most consistent with Objectivist principles. The only points of major disagreement that I can think of between his politics and Rand’s and Peikoff’s politics are:
1. Abortion — he doesn’t see abortion as a right to be protected by the Federal government; although he does not stand for banning it outright (he takes the “leave it up to the states” stance), and
2. Foreign Policy — Rand and Peikoff take a much more hawkish stance.
However, (1) most states are not going to ban abortions, so I don’t see his stance on abortion changing much of anything, except that he will take away federal subsidies for abortion, which Objectivists would be for anyway, and (2) the truth is that we need to take a less agressive stance towards foreign policy, if for no other reason than that we simply can’t afford to be fighting all these wars accross the globe — we just don’t have the revenue to support it anymore; and I think that Rand would agree with Paul on his strategy, if not on his premises, with the possible exception of Iran.
So am I missing something, or does the Objectivists’ objection to Paul really just boil down to Iran?
If so, then I’m not that worried about Iran. If America leaves Iran alone, you can believe the Israelis will pick up the slack. And you can’t tell me that the American private security firms won’t help out the Israelis with weapons and man-power should all hell break loose; there’s too much to gain by Israel winning another war in the Middle East unhinged from American intrusion. “ End Quote.
Let me tell you Cornell what is Ron Paul’s anathema in the eyes of the Bulk of Objectivists…
He Breaks the First Commandment of Objectivism… “Thou shalt not love the Lord God in any way shape or form..”
This is the unpardonable sin in the eyes of Objectivism.
Objectivism is a Religion.
Atheism is it’s First principle.
And Objectivists willingly sacrifice the principles of Freedom for the sake of halting any Theistic champion of Liberty or justice taking the limelight… thus in spite of all their claims to reason.. they prove them selves to be irrational religious zealots/fanatics.
In their minds It is unthinkable for them to accept the Idea that a theist could be the champion of Liberty and justice.
To accept this they would have to abandon Objectivism because Objectivism is based upon Anti-theism… and it is this which attracted most of them to the faith.
Peter Creswell clearly indicates this *Here* when he says Ron Paul cant be a Libertarian because he’s a Creationist… who will not draw a line between his religion and the State.
Comming from a Randoid this is shear hypocracy… and not true, ie Ron Paul maintains a separation between his Religion and the state, and the fact that He is a Creationist whom rejects the theory of evolution does not render him irrational at all!
PC speaks from his own Bigoted Anti-reason superstition.
Thus The Title of my Blogpost and the Meme explains everything… why Objectivists helped the Powers of Evil in undermining the Greatest champion of Liberty in America today.
Many Libertarian minded Kiwi will be gathering next Saturday to discuss the formation of a New Libertarian orintated Party to gather together the remnants of the Act Party, The Libertarianz, and others like the legalize cannabis party into an Electoral fighting force. It will not be an easy thing to achieve, esp if Objectivists hope to contaminate the constitution with their personal religion, and to put out Anti-theistic blogs and press releases in the name of the New organization. The only hope this New Paty has is that it establishes a true separation between personal beliefs and the constitution, and operates via a libertarian spirit of toleration… for mutual benefit.
I have my own view about how such a party ought to be constituted and I hope to produce a blogpost in this subject before Next Saturday.
Are you Lost in Scientism?
Lies destroy our grip on reality.
The Bible tells us of a Necromancer whom raised the prophet Samuel’s Ghost.
Do you doubt this really happened? Do you assume science proves this is impossible? If so you have been decieved!
Science has proven no such thing!
You have been decieved into believing Science proves Materialism/ monism/ Naturalism!
You have been Mentally Hobbled!
If you have been conditioned to believe Reality is strictly limited to only what Empirical Science can substantiate, then you are trapped in the Straight jacket of Scientism.
If you Believe absolutely in Naturalism, No God, no Ghosts, No miracles… You are a prisoner of Scientism.
If you Believe that Material reality is the only reality… You have been Smoked by Atheist Scientism.
Scientism is form of intellectual Coffin Torture!… a closeted mentality… a short sighted blindness… a vanity.
Scientism is a Religion…and not a very intelligent one at that!
Scientism is Irrational.
The day anyone realizes the trap that is Materialist Naturalist Scientism, and boldly embraces the possibility of Super-naturalism…is a day of personal Liberation!
It is an awakening…to a greater reality… Greater possiblities… more plausible probabilities!
It is mind expanding… Freewill is not an Illusion!
It puts Emperical Science (and our sences) into their proper context.
It apprehends their limitations.
It allows the enlightened person to shrug off the absurdities, the Gross implausibility, the wild superstition, The Deadness, The Amorality, The Meaningless, The Purposeless, The enslavement and surrender to Determinism…that Materialist Naturalism demands of it’s devotees.
Hour Of Power. The Great Dr Robert Schuller (Senior).
“Faith is the Optimistic vison of a Possiblity thinker, whereas Atheism is the Pessimistic lack of vison of an impossiblity thinker…” (Quote from memory)
Then One can look back at the past 500 years and appreciate the how the Ideologies of Materialism, Naturalism, and Scientism came about, and why they have successfully blinded the minds of millions of Men whom vainly consider themselves ‘Superior’… ‘Modern’… ‘Men of Reason’…. ‘Liberated from ‘Faith’ and Superstitious Error’, Etc yet ultimately have proven to be Blind, leaders of the Blind.
Thus saith THE LORD…
There is No conflict between True Religion/ The Bible, and True Science!
The Bible gives us access to a reality which is otherwise beyond our reach.
The Bible is Super Natural…Divine Revelation.
“A little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion.”
Francis Bacon…The Father of Modern Science.
“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1Cor2vs114)
“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:…” (1Tim6vs20)
St Paul
Tim Wikiriwhi
Christian. Libertarian. 1611 King James Bible Believer. Dispensationalist. Possibility Thinker.
Scientism is a term used, usually pejoratively, to refer to belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints.
The term frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism and has been used by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayek, philosophers of science such as Karl Popper, and philosophers such as Hilary Putnam to describe the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measurable.
Scientism may refer to science applied “in excess”. The term scientism can apply in either of two equally pejorative senses:
To indicate the improper usage of science or scientific claims.
This usage applies equally in contexts where science might not apply, such as when the topic is perceived to be beyond the scope of scientific inquiry, and in contexts where there is insufficient empirical evidence to justify a scientific conclusion. It includes an excessive deference to claims made by scientists or an uncritical eagerness to accept any result described as scientific. In this case, the term is a counterargument to appeals to scientific authority.
To refer to “the belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry,” or that “science, and only science, describes the world as it is in itself, independent of perspective” with a concomitant “elimination of the psychological dimensions of experience.”
The term is also used to highlight the possible dangers of lapses towards excessive reductionism in all fields of human knowledge.
For sociologists in the tradition of Max Weber, such as Jürgen Habermas, the concept of scientism relates significantly to the philosophy of positivism, but also to the cultural rationalization of the modern West.
Contents
1 Overview
2 Relevance to science/religion debates
3 Philosophy of science
4 Religion and philosophy
5 Rationalization and modernity
6 Dictionary meanings
7 Media references
8 See also
9 References
10 External links
OverviewReviewing the references to scientism in the works of contemporary scholars, Gregory R. Petersondetects two main broad themes:
It is used to criticize a totalizing view of science as if it were capable of describing all reality and knowledge, or as if it were the only true way to acquire knowledge about reality and the nature of things;
It is used to denote a border-crossing violation in which the theories and methods of one (scientific) discipline are inappropriately applied to another (scientific or non-scientific) discipline and its domain. An example of this second usage is to label as scientism any attempt to claim science as the only or primary source of human values (a traditional domain of ethics) or as the source of meaning and purpose (a traditional domain of religion and related worldviews).
Mikael Stenmark proposes the expression scientific expansionism as a synonym of scientism.In the Encyclopedia of science and religion, he writes that, while the doctrines that are described as scientism have many possible forms and varying degrees of ambition, they share the idea that the boundaries of science (that is, typically the natural sciences) could and should be expanded so that something that has not been previously considered as a subject pertinent to science can now be understood as part of science (usually with science becoming the sole or the main arbiter regarding this area or dimension).
According to Stenmark, the strongest form of scientism states that science has no boundaries and that all human problems and all aspects of human endeavor, with due time, will be dealt with and solved by science alone. This idea has also been called the Myth of Progress.
E. F. Schumacher in his A Guide for the Perplexed criticized scientism as an impoverished world view confined solely to what can be counted, measured and weighed. “The architects of the modern worldview, notably Galileo and Descartes, assumed that those things that could be weighed, measured, and counted were more true than those that could not be quantified. If it couldn’t be counted, in other words, it didn’t count.”
Relevance to science/religion debatesThe term is often used by speakers such as John Haught against vocal critics of religion-as-such.[25] Philosopher Daniel Dennett responded to criticism of his book Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon by saying that “when someone puts forward a scientific theory that [religious critics] really don’t like, they just try to discredit it as ‘scientism'”.
Michael Shermer, founder of The Skeptics Society, draws a parallel between scientism and traditional religious movements, pointing to the cult of personality that develops around some scientists in the public eye. He defines scientism as a worldview that encompasses natural explanations, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason.
The Iranian scholar Seyyed Hossein Nasr has stated that in the West, many will accept the ideology of modern science, not as “simple ordinary science”, but as a replacement for religion.
Gregory R. Peterson writes that “for many theologians and philosophers, scientism is among the greatest of intellectual sins”.
Susan Haack argues that the charge of “scientism” caricatures actual scientific endeavor. No single form of inference or procedure of inquiry used by scientists explains the success of science. Instead we find:
the inferences and procedures used by all serious empirical inquirers
a vast array of tools of inquiry, from observational instruments to mathematical techniques, as well as social mechanisms that encourage honesty. These tools are diverse and evolving, and many are domain-specific.
Philosophy of science
In his essay, Against Method, Paul Feyerabend characterizes science as “an essentially anarchic enterprise” and argues emphatically that science merits no exclusive monopoly over “dealing in knowledge” and that scientists have never operated within a distinct and narrowly self-defined tradition. He depicts the process of contemporary scientific education as a mild form of indoctrination, aimed at “making the history of science duller, simpler, more uniform, more ‘objective’ and more easily accessible to treatment by strict and unchanging rules.”
[S]cience can stand on its own feet and does not need any help from rationalists, secular humanists, Marxists and similar religious movements; and … non-scientific cultures, procedures and assumptions can also stand on their own feet and should be allowed to do so … Science must be protected from ideologies; and societies, especially democratic societies, must be protected from science… In a democracy scientific institutions, research programmes, and suggestions must therefore be subjected to public control, there must be a separation of state and science just as there is a separation between state and religious institutions, and science should be taught as one view among many and not as the one and only road to truth and reality.
— Feyerabend, Against Method, p.viii
Religion and philosophyPhilosopher of religion Keith Ward has said scientism is philosophically inconsistent or even self-refuting, as the truth of the statements “no statements are true unless they can be proven scientifically (or logically)” or “no statements are true unless they can be shown empirically to be true” cannot themselves be proven scientifically, logically, or empirically.[32]
Rationalization and modernity: Rationalization (sociology)
In the introduction to his collected oeuvre on the sociology of religion, Max Weber asks why “the scientific, the artistic, the political, or the economic development [elsewhere]… did not enter upon that path of rationalization which is peculiar to the Occident?” According to the distinguished German social theorist, Jürgen Habermas, “For Weber, the intrinsic (that is, not merely contingent) relationship between modernity and what he called ‘Occidental rationalism’ was still self-evident.” Weber described a process of rationalisation, disenchantment and the “disintegration of religious world views” that resulted in modern secular societies and capitalism.[33]
“Modernization” was introduced as a technical term only in the 1950s. It is the mark of a theoretical approach that takes up Weber’s problem but elaborates it with the tools of social-scientific functionalism… The theory of modernization performs two abstractions on Weber’s concept of “modernity”. It dissociates “modernity” from its modern European origins and stylizes it into a spatio-temporally neutral model for processes of social development in general. Furthermore, it breaks the internal connections between modernity and the historical context of Western rationalism, so that processes of modernization… [are] no longer burdened with the idea of a completion of modernity, that is to say, of a goal state after which “postmodern” developments would have to set in… Indeed it is precisely modernization research that has contributed to the currency of the expression “postmodern” even among social scientists.
— Jürgen Habermas, The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity
Habermas is critical of pure instrumental rationality, arguing that the “Social Life–World” is better suited to literary expression, the former being “intersubjectively accessible experiences” that can be generalized in a formal language, while the latter “must generate an intersubjectivity of mutual understanding in each concrete case”:[34][35]
The world in which human beings are born and live and finally die; the world in which they love and hate, in which they experience triumph and humiliation, hope and despair; the world of sufferings and enjoyments, of madness and common sense, of silliness, cunning and wisdom; the world of social pressures and individual impulses, of reason against passion, of instincts and conventions, of shared language and unsharable feelings and sensations…
— Aldous Huxley, Literature and Science
Dictionary meanings
Standard dictionary definitions include the following applications of the term “scientism”:
The use of the style, assumptions, techniques, and other attributes typically displayed by scientists.
Methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist.
An exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation, as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities.
The use of scientific or pseudoscientific language.
The contention that the social sciences, such as economics and sociology, are only properly sciences when they abide by the somewhat stricter interpretation of scientific method used by the natural sciences, and that otherwise they are not truly sciences.
“A term applied (freq. in a derogatory manner) to a belief in the omnipotence of scientific knowledge and techniques; also to the view that the methods of study appropriate to physical science can replace those used in other fields such as philosophy and, esp., human behaviour and the social sciences.”
“1. The collection of attitudes and practices considered typical of scientists. 2. The belief that the investigative methods of the physical sciences are applicable or justifiable in all fields of inquiry.”
The Atom. Monists say that Each Individual, All Humanity, All Life, Love, Artistic expression, Every Moral crusade, Politics, Religion, Every Conscious thought, Every moment of Ecstasy and wonder are nothing more than the interaction of Atoms.
Its been one of those days…Reading the Waikato Times pg 7.
So much Atheist Bullshit… So little time to Rub their noses in it!
One of the favorite Atheist ‘Group hugs’ is their Self delusion that their beliefs are planted in ‘superior soil’ to Balmy Religious ‘Hocus pocus’.
They claim to dwell at the pinnacle of the evolutionary advance, having Superior Intelligence and Superior Education to their Lesser Religious cousins, and having escaped the primitive mindset which is religiously prone, they claim *Reason* as the mighty Rock upon which they stand.
Now if the stench of vanity is not enough to make you question the validity of these claims, The Exploits of one of their Sects ought to.
I refer to that sect of atheists known as ‘Evolutionary psychologists’ whose primary ambition is to take the mind of mankind and using scientific jargon make up a rationale to vindicate their faith that everything in the universe conforms to their Atheist Naturalistic Cosmology.
That is their brief, their duty, their delight.
What is important to realize about this process is that insodoing they De-Humanize Mankind from being a Freewill/ reasoning/ Moral Agent into a mere Automation… a robot.
This can be clearly seen in such declarations as this….
How Flocking Ridiculous!
They want you to believe your little Tot has a Pre-disposition to vote Left! (Or Right, or Whateva)
What more via this notion that Genes make our political decisions for us, they have negated your power of reason and freewill …which is what the very purpose of their conclusions are aimed at achieving… forcing the Mind to comply with materialistic determinism, and just as importantly undermining the Moral culpability which underpins The Christian Argument in respect to freewill and Divine judgment.
Many Atheists will get warm fuzzies from this announcement and say to themselves…”Yes! Freewill is a myth! Everything in the Universe has a purely Naturalistic explanation… There is no God and Man is not a Moral Agent.”
“Everything that is… from the Moon, to Leonardo’s Mona Lisa was Pre-ordained in the Big Bang”
Ie they will accept these findings simply because they conveniently integrate with their Materialistic faith…. Ha ha…. Think about that! Blind leading the Blind…
I ask you this…Why would anyone believe any such research produced by such a partisan lobby to be objective and valid?
To think this sect is capable of Real Scientific Objectivity is as Nieve as believing the Waitangi Tribunal’s Ruling that Maori own the Water rights of New Zealand was an objective and impartial judgment in respect to 1840 British Law, and the treaty!
To expect the Evolutionary psychologists to present findings that were contrary to their personal Materialist delusions would be as Naive as expecting Anti-slavery Abolitionist John Brown to have been found ‘Not Guilty’ of treason and insurrection by the Slave State Virginia court!
John Brown did not receive justice, and like shambolic rulings of The Waitangi Tribunal, in declaring Politics to be a Genetic trait, the Priests of Materialism have simply dictated their own prejudices.
This is not Science!
It’s a scam!
And these ‘findings’ fly in the face of Common experience!
Materialism is absurd!
(I had the option of saying Materialism is Ridiculous!… ie we exercise freewill every day!)
We change our political opinions based upon convincing enough Rationale.
*If The Atheists apply their own arguments upon themselves and their Atheism… they must concede that their atheism is not based upon Reason at all but that their rejection of the Idea of a God is simply a Genetic Predisposition!
They ought to conclude that they are not more intelligent…. Not more rationale…. Their education counts for Naught…. They are simply Genetic Atheists… and no amount of reason will convince them God exists.
Thus their own arguments render them stupid.
In the light of this ramification by what act of self delusion do they continue to insist that they are guided by reason, or that Reason is the preserve of atheism?
They have utterly destroyed Reason and enshrined Chemistry!
Our thoughts have been reduced down to chemical actions.
This is where Monism leads to.
The annihilation of the Human being.
Reason is a Theistic/ spiritual concept. Understandable in the Idea of God *THE CONSCIOUS REASONING SPIRITUAL BEING*.
It involves Liberty, and Choice.
Things which are completely alien to Materialistic determinism, and random chaos.
Computers don’t Reason.
Humans Reason. We are not computers… We are like God. We are Free, and we can make real choices. We are Moral Agents.
An ‘Educated’ friend of ours tells me he finds the notion of dualism to be incomprehensible… He’s been saturated in materialism too long!
I must remind him that the fact that we may not be able to understand something (ie Dualism) does not necessarily make it irrational or superstition to accept it and believe in it.I accept Dualism and Biblical morality because it’s explanatory power is vastly superior to Materialism Naturalism.
You cannot expect science to synthesize God, or weigh/ measure the Human soul.
That does not negate their reality. It merely sets limits to the power of science.
(The materialist Tech-myth of artificial consciousness is sooo in fashion!)
I accept spiritual Being as absolutely necessary because materialist naturalism is woefully inadequate to explain reality, and laugh at the pathetic efforts of Materialists to render everything sterile and dead… and accidental.
Scientifically speaking The Human soul is like The Higgs Boson. It’s a Theoretical spiritual particle postulated to explain Consciousness and freewill. Nobody has ever seen it. It’ cant be directly observed. Yet we can trust/ believe in it’s existance because of indirect observations …
“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God…”
(Psalm 14vs1)
“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:”
(Rom 1vs20)
Re: The Freewill vs Materialist determinism debate.
Today I found an interesting scientific study done in New Zealand vindicating skepticism in the fashionable ideas of Evolutionary psychology, which as a ‘Naturalistic Doctrine’ argues that all human morality is determined by Genetics… ie that there is no such thing as freewill moral choice.
This New Otargo research now says Babies lack morals… (Suprise!….not.) This overturns previously Reaserch submitted in 2007 by Yales Kiley Hamlin whom argured that 6-10mth old infants could already make moral choices and that these must be Innate .
We can see that Yales Kiley Hamlin was predisposed to the Evolutionary/ materialist/ genetic/ hypothesis when she presented her research which she argued that Babies are born with an original moral blueprint …
Quote: “… It also reminds us that behavior is not simply nature versus nurture; it is about the interaction of genes and their environments…”
And so we can understand why she now continues to defend her hypothesis against the critisism from New Zealand.
The new New Zealand study undermines these sorts of Evolutionary/ deterministic theories.
To my way of thinking it ought to be Obvious that Both Nature, and Nurture play significant roles in the Morality of individuals, Yet I would add a third and most critical element… an element Naturalist/ materialists are keen to Exorcise from mankind…. The Individual ‘Soul’ or inner spiritual being unique to each individual (The real ‘US’…. indwelling our bodies like a man indwells a house), which has the capacity to make freewill choices which either endorses the amoral desires of our physical being (our lusts), which Licence may or may not be sanctioned by the culture the individual has been nurtured in, or it/we may overcome both these external factors and choose to embrace either a higher’ or ‘lower’ morality than what is ‘the norm’ for his day and age. In my view it is this inner spiritual character which will determine the quality and height of morality any particular individual will aspire to….or settle for. This is why Individuals can appear in complete contrast to the Times and customs of their Peers, and forsaking the accepted norms of the society that surrounds them, and become aliens …. on a pilgrimage of either light or darkness… depending upon the intents of their heart. This Road is steep, yet is a two way street. You can simply stay put with most of your peers… and make camp at the spot you where you feel most comfortable…Why bother going anywhere?
Or you can turn your face to the mountain and labour upwards towards Heavens light…good luck finding faithful company who will not forsake you half way along your arduous journey!
Or you can turn your back and take the direction of least resistance, downward into Darkness…
What this means is that we as individuals are responsible for the sort of human beings we become (or remain). We are not simply slaves to our biology and Environment. We each have an unique inner Being which determines our moral character as individuals. This explains why a child raised in a religious home can choose to forsake the beliefs and values they were taught, and instead choose to become an atheist adult, and why someone raised to accept atheist materialism can later choose to forsake Atheism for God… demonstrating Humanity is in constant Flux… and that Liberty/ freewill and rationality are what matters most in the moral question … not Chemical determinism.
Prior to Darwin, Christians always believed that while Children posess Adams fallen Human Nature, that they are born ‘innocent’, and later develope their moral sence, at which point in time (differeing between individuals) they become morrally responcible for their actions and accountible unto God.
And Our Society also ‘believes’ this to be true in that it does not convict children for crimes.
This rationale also underpins the Doctrine that all innocent little children whom die, Go to heaven… and this doctrine is supported by various scriptures.
I must also point out that even if it was discovered that babies had some ability to make moral choices, that this would not prove that morality stems automatically from Genes.
Dawkins is not a quantum ejaculation.
He is far more easily understood as a son of Fallen Adam.
Much of Dawkins own ‘Rationalizations’ may be reflected back upon the man himself.
One way we can look at the Animal Richard Dawkins is as fairly ordinary/ typical specimen of Humanity… nothing particularly spectacular ….
He’s no mystery.
He’s Quite fathomable as a product of Human Nature and 20th century nurturing.
Dawkins, like the rest of us harbors the same basic ‘nature’….the desire to escape the restraints of Moral law. To be our own God’s…etc
What Dawkins hates the most about the Bible is … As The Highlander might say …”There can be only 1!”
“And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” (Genesis 2vs16,17)
Satan: “Yea hath God said…?
“And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: (Genesis3vs1,4)
I hope to show you that the Book of Genesis appears to have been written to expressly refute the likes of Richard Dawkins.
By the time I have finished this section I hope to have clearly shown that The Bible foresaw the rise of such personalities as Dawkins.
It explains how he was spawned.
It exposes his rationale as that of a man whom professes himself to be wise… when in fact he is a deceived fool…. Caught up in his own craftiness.
The Book of Genesis is written in such a way as to show the proper/ only rational way for man to have a loving relationship with God is to *trust in his good character* and have faith in his word.
*This is wisdom*
It is a simple matter of reason to understand that finite beings like us humans, can never know/ understand everything about The Almighty. And that though we can grow in wisdom, nonetheless it is paramount that we trust in the Goodness of our divine Father beyond our scope of understanding. The basis for this faith is that he has proven himself to be loving, and gracious towards us and therefore has earned full respect.
Life will put this faith to the test.
The deceiver will do his utmost to make you forsake God… to become like Richard Dawkins.
Satan Loves to Bamboozle!
One of the best ‘tricks of the trade’ I have learned as an amateur/ unschooled thinker is that when things get complicated (as with this thorny subject) … it is time to step to the side… and find a simple place to stand.
And it is amazing how well this works to cut through all the Din and confusion.
I want to do this right now.
I want to lay down a few basic ideas which to my mind cut though the ‘Everest of Codswallop’ Sophist rationalists have thrown up against the Good character of God as revealed in the Bible.
This Issue is ideologically speaking ‘The Mother of all Wars’. Satan and His Minions *Cannot allow Faith in the Bible/ faith in Gods word to stand*.
If (By Providence) I can at least succeed in establishing this *Essential point*, Every other Objective spiritual truth follows.
As long as Satan is able to deceive people into disputing the trustworthiness of the Bible, He has them under his Power.
I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one. (1john2:14)
Now I am going to go back over the Genesis story.
*Please don’t yawn!*
Put your thinking cap on!
*Pray for God to be your Guide*
Once upon a time, Long ago… God created Adam and Eve.
It is important to realize that before God created Man, Lucifer / the Father of Lies had already rebelled against God. We know this because after a short unspecified length of time, Lucifer entered the Garden *as Satan* to deceive Eve.
Many people (including many Christians/ ‘Young Earther’s’/ Bible skeptics) mistake the First chapter of Genesis as being the Bible story of the Creation of the Universe, and the Planet Earth when in fact this was a restoration of an already pre-existing Universe which God had passed judgment upon/ destroyed due to the Rebellion of Lucifer, and the Earth was laid waste…Flooded and in Darkness.
(Gen 1vs 1,2)
The Biblical account of the actual creation of the Universe is found in the 1st chapter of the gospel of John.
Genesis 1 is the story of God’s restoration the Dry land (Earth) for his new creation Mankind.
There was no death (for man).
He Put Adam in the wonderful Garden of Eden, and because he cared about Adam, he made him his Wife Eve, for company, and for Procreation… to share and enjoy life in the garden and to enjoy the presence and companionship of God their Father.
At this blessed time there were no floods, no earthquakes, no plagues, no pestilences, etc, in the Garden.
According to God’s Determination…*Everything there was ‘good’.*
Yet because God did not want to create clockwork toys, but desired fellowship with beings with which he could truly commune, he made the Earth, and Mankind, in such a way that the potential for Evil and death existed.
Adam was called the Son of God, and it was a Loving trusting relationship which God wanted with Mankind.
God wanted Beings whom could reciprocate true love, could reason and appreciate God’s greatest characteristics, ie his Love, generosity, and Artistic glory, ie appreciate his creative power.
(We shall later see how even the Fall of Mankind allowed God to reveal even deeper parts of his character, and to create even more wonderful beings than Adam and Eve… all perceived in the mind of God before the foundation of the world)
And to established his Sovereignty, and give man opportunity to show his love, trust and respect for his Father, God gave Man one simple prohibition.
The test was to have faith in the Good character of God…
*Though it appeared that he was with holding ‘a good’ from mankind.*
The Test was for Adam to respect Gods Law, and to trust in his goodness.
“And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” (Genesis 2vs16,17)
I know that all sorts of Pre-conceived alarm bells will have been triggered by the ‘dominos’ I have push over, yet I ask you to switch off your ‘automatic’ security system you mistake for thinking, and actually truly *Contemplate what is going on here*.
Ask yourself… Does God have the right to deny Adam the right to eat that fruit?
Ie Does God have the Right to make a Law that appears to withhold something good from us? And can he do so… and yet still be considered to be absolutely Good?
This is a fundamental question in respect to God’s Sovereignty, and Good character.
Let me state that you take extreme care regarding what rationale you choose to apply to arrive at your judgment in respect to this ultimate moral question, as your choice may have more to do with your inner desires, rather than Objective reason.
You are taking the Audacious step of Standing in Judgment of God Almighty!
We ought to tremble at such a dreadful notion.
The extreme presumption of the act!
That we even dare tells us something about us… something dangerous… something awful about our predicament.
After contemplation, My answer to the above questions is rather simple.
*YES!* God is completely within his Sovereign right to make such a Prohibition.
And because of all the many blessings God had already given to Adam, Adam *Ought* to have trusted and obeyed his Father in respect to the Forbidden Fruit.
It is only via a convoluted Sophistry that my simple affirmative answer may be denied.
…Yet it was exactly via such sophistry that mankind was deceived into dis-obeying God, and bringing death and destruction upon himself. Take note ye Rationalists…
Satan enters the Garden….
Satan was able to rationalize a cunning deception which brought the character of God into question, and convinced Eve that God’s word was untrustworthy.
“Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
(Gen3vs1-8)
From this we can tell that at the time of Adam and Eve, God, in his wisdom, had not ‘imprisoned’ or annihilated Satan for his rebellion, and so we may reason that God allowed Satan *the Liberty* to continue his wicked ways and to enter the Garden, and to tell lies, in direct contradiction to God’s word.
Satan used a rationale to deceive mankind into distrusting God’s good character by implying God was mean spirited because he was withholding something Good from them, and convinced them into disbelieving God’s word… that they would not die if they ate the forbidden fruit.
What is even more interesting to consider is this:
I have often thought that the forbidden Fruit may have been a ‘poisonous berry’, but not so poisonous as to bring immediate death, but toxic enough to corrupt Adams Genes so as to spoil his physical perfection and ultimately result in his death, and begin the start of Mankind’s hereditary death and genetic degeneration… (the exact opposite direction in the passage of time postulated by the theory of Evolution)… which degeneration is actually scientifically vindicated in respect to the deterioration of the human genome.
I reasoned that if the Fruit was indeed toxic, then we may understand God’s warning that Adam must not eat that fruit lest he die, as being a bona-fide warning of physical danger.
(Question: Is the creation of Poisonous fruit compatible with the notion of a Good God? Ie Doe’s god have the right to make poisonous fruit?)
Yet this Idea that the fruit was toxic is not necessarily so.
I have come to realize a far more plausible yet radical understanding…
*Satan may have indeed been telling the truth when he said ye shall not die!*
Ie The fruit may have indeed been as vs 6 says …*Good for food*… and thus Satan was able to *use the truth* to destroy mankind!
This is Radical. This is Profound!
Satan was able to sow ‘truth’ and into a cunning lie, which presented itself as a valid reason to distrust God.
His Rationale appeared to justify disobeying Gods command.
What this shows is that God was not talking about a physical ‘cause and effect’ scenario, but a purely Moral cause and effect scenario, and Satan was able to get man to focus on the mundane.
Thus Man’s sin, and Fall was purely the act of faithlessness in Gods goodness and his Rebellion via disobedience… and the Fall was a faithless… reason based delusion.
And once Adam had broken his covenant with God, he brought Death upon himself… As God had clearly warned that if he ate of the forbidden fruit, he would surely die.
The Father of Lies had succeeded to seducing Mankind into rebelling against God and brought death upon them… yet it was Adam who freely chose to follow Satan rather than God.
And thus God cursed mankind, and the ground we walk on (The Earth). We lost our physical perfection and became mortals, and threw them out of the Blessed Garden. (yet still made a promise to send Christ)
Paradise was lost.
Now primarily… Morality is morality because our actions effect not only ourselves, but other people for good or ill.
It is a fact of Nature that Children ‘inherit’ the earth their parents have bequeathed to them… for good or ill. Hardworking and thrifty parents may raise their children in a nice house, with Good clothing, and buy them Books to learn etc, while slothful and vice ridden parents may raise their children in want and squalor. The first parents showing their Good values and love by fulfilling their moral duties and responsibilities, the second Parents displaying wicked irresponciblity. The innocent Children of the first parents reap the benifits of their parants moral virtues, while the innocent children of the second parents wrongfully/ unjustly suffer because of their parents wickedness.
To be able to appreciate this and to grasp the ‘wrongness’ of the second parents shows what it means to be Moral agents inhabiting a Moral Reality. The sence of wrong also exposes a need for Divine judgement and justice to correct this wrong.
There are at least two ‘orders’ of evil which we children of fallen Adam must endue as a consequence of Adams Fall. 1. is the Evils Mankind inflicts upon himself and each other…The bible teaches these evils stem from our fallen nature eg. The first born Man was Cain,. He would go on to murder his younger brother Abel. The 2nd order are what we call the Natural evils, Disease, Floods, earthquakes, etc which the Bible says resulted by God cursing the Earth, and destroying its perfect goodness which Mankind enjoyed before the fall. And God Separated himself from Mankind as well.
Thus were the circumstances which brought about all the evils we suffer today.
The Evils which make many people to think there is no God, esp no Good and loving God.
The order of events is important.
Mankind First sinned… that destroyed the blessings and pure goodness of creation as God had created it , God’s judgment bringing all Natural evils upon us and being true to his word, God passed the sentence of Death upon us.
That’s the biblical order.
God repented making Man…before the flood. He was compelled to destroy mankind because of their wickedness!
What the Fall, and the Curse also tell us is that *things are happening on the Earth that are not Gods will*
The evils we suffer were not how God originally made things.
Mankind’s wickedness….Wars, murders, rapes, thefts, etc are a testimony to the rebellion against God.
*They are a part of the moral continuum*
God has separated himself from us so that this ‘Goddless world plays out it’s charade…yet he has not forsaken us… he sent Christ to save us from Damnation, and gave us his Written word… his revelation so that we can come to a knowledge of the truth.
What is also profound to grasp is just how ‘serious’ was the command not to eat of that fruit!
From what we may consider a very ‘minor’ sin…. All the chaos and destruction followed! Rationalists will no doubt stagger at the implication that from such small origin did all the wickedness and separation from God …of human history.
They fail to grasp the quality of God’s holiness, and that sin is a disease… “a little leaven leveneth the whole lump”.
Question: Ought God have locked up Satan in hell before he made man?
He obviously planed to allow Satan to tempt mankind.
Was this wrong?
Who O man are you to stand in judgment of God?
From the Fall of man we can understand where Atheism came from… where is God?
From the fall we can understand where mans Rebellious nature to moral law comes from… Why must I conform to any Laws?
We can understand where the Rationalist spirit of unbelief and sophistry has its root… in the eternal desire to undermine God’s word, and to deny God’s right to make prohibitions, and to judge… ie Rationalism is the Spirit that denies God’s Sovereignty.
The Bible is not like every other Book.
It is God’s Holy, and Authorotive word.
God’s Preachers and Apostles, and Teachers instruct those whom seek after God to trust the scriptures, and present proofs that the Bible is worthy of adoration.
These teachers are not ignorant men. But skilled also in the Arts, histories, and sciences of Mankind.
On the other hand we have the Children of the Devil… the unbelieving sophists…. the contemptible and spiritually lost/ Ignorant Rationalists.
The rationalists tell us we must not ‘revere’ the Bible.
(They revere nothing but the own interlectual vanity…their own grand delusions!)
They say we ought to treat the Bible the same way as we would the Epics of Homer.
Yet by doing so they have already deceived you!
They Don’t believe it is the true Revelation from God!
They then automatically begin to apply their own Naturalistic anthropology to the interpretation of Scriptures.
All miracles are *automatically* rendered fables.
Any conversations Man is said to have had with God, any Judgments God is said to have visited upon mankind are firstly decried as being monstrous delusions of Barbaric minds, and then relegated to the realms of Myth and allegory etc.
By Rationalist logic, All the Gods of Mankind are Guilty of Cruelty and capriciousness by association.
Why should not Jehovah be compared with Moloch?
That The God of the Bible has visited mankind with deadly judgements is proof enough in their minds that he is a power crazy, melicious, tyranical being.
They make no distiction between the God of Abraham who judged The antideluvians and the Cananites because of their violence and wickedness, from the Blood thirsty Gods of the Azteks whom simply lust after Blood!
This is because it suits the Rationalists purposes to Deny God has any right to pass moral judgements upon mankind.
People like Noah and even Jesus are said to be inventions of Savage minds… like Hercules, Maui, etc. Little sleep is lost over the discoveries which prove many of the ancient personalities were real people.
This short little exposé on Materialistic Rationalism merely points out some of their grand assumptions…all of which can be challenged and exposed as sloppy wishful thinking which does no justice to subject it pretends to master.
Yet the pitiful antics of the Rationalists has been sufficient to convince the scholars studying the philosophy and ‘history’ of religion that he may handle the Bible with no more dread than any other ancient book of folk lore.
It is sufficient to convince the ‘schooled intellectual’ that Bible believers are crackpots, and that creationism should have no place in the education of Children.
This whole business is based upon a single premise… that all religion is merely human invention. If indeed the atheists are correct that there is no God, then it rationally follows that all religion must be born in Human imagination.
Yet if they are wrong… and I say they are… then they are making a huge error…If one of the Great religions of the world is actually true, then this whole business is a giant smokescreen, which is burying the truth amongst a pile of lies!
As a Christian I have no doubt that many religions are pure fiction… the inventions of Human imagination. Others are deviations from an original purity. Others still are half truths derived via Natural theology, moral experience, and consciousness.
Yet it is my testimony to mankind that The Bible is different to every other Religious text in that it is truly the inspired and preserved revelation from Almighty God!
The Bible tells the History of Mankind’…warts and all!
The Bible is not a wishy washy fabrication.
I hope that this post at least hints at how Mankind…including ourselves… can be fully understood… even our passions and rationalizations… our violence, our rebellion, our vanity.
Ie The Bible holds true to reality and experience!
Please understand that I am not trying to shield the Bible from rigorous investigation!
By all means investigate!
What I am saying is take care not to be fooled by the atheist rationalizations…sloppy colectivisations… such as equating Jehovah with Zeus… and fall into the trap of putting both Gods on the same human Pantheon.
As a Bible believer, I have spent 27 years studying religion comparatively, and this is a very rewarding subject, yet I have always taken care to measure up any criticism held against believing the Bible to be infallible, to see if it ‘holds water’… and always… always I find the criticism are full of leaks… full of assumptions, etc and so I always return my eyes to the Bible with reverence and faith… For I always give the benefit of the doubt to God and his precious revelation. And after 27 years my faith in the veracity of the King James Bible is such that I am dedicated to propagating faith in it’s trustworthiness to whomsoever will hear. There are few things that are more worthy of my fleeting moments.
St Paul. (2Thes5vs23)
“And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the comming of our Lord Jesus Christ”.
(Suppose, for the sake of argument.) God created the heavens and the earth … the sun, the moon, the stars, the skies, the land, the seas … the plants, the animals … and mankind. All in the space of six days! (By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.)
How did he do it?
To some it may seem presumptuous even to ask how God went about the business of creation. But mankind is a curious creature. His inquiring mind wants to know. Humans (some of them) thirst for knowledge for knowledge’s sake. That’s why we have philosophy and science and why, today (thank God), we live in a technologically advanced age. The gains in scientific knowledge made since the Enlightenment are nothing short of stupendous.
And now we know.
We now know, for example, that the several references in the Old Testament to God “stretching out the heavens” refer to the metric expansion of space which is a key feature of Big Bang cosmology. We now know that the Universe had its origin in a moment of creation some 13.75 billion years ago.
Let it be said, however, that cosmology is a better example of human ignorance than human knowledge. We’re still in the dark about so many of the fundamentals. Dark matter and dark energy are aptly named. But in other branches of science we know a great deal more. We know so much, in fact, that we can, and do, “play God”. To illustrate this point, here is a recent news headline.
We’ve mapped the human genome. We’ve mapped the genome of Mycoplasma genitalium and run software simulations of the entire organism. We’ve even constructed artificial life (assuming, of course, that a virus can truly be called a living thing), building it from scratch in a laboratory, one RNA molecule at a time. And this is only the prelude to what is to come.
We know how animals (albeit, very small ones) are made. We know how they work. We can simulate them. We can even build them ourselves.
Where am I heading with this? Actually, this post is for my co-blogger, Tim. God made animals, but he also made the human mind. I anticipate that one day we will find out how the human mind is made. We’ll run a simulation of a human mind on the powerful computers of the not-too-distant future.
