Posted on 09/20/2013 4:29:03 AM PDT by spirited irish
Of course, Charles Darwin never heard of these two guys.
Also, if I may amplify my earlier suggestion that human nature is a "given" that persists down the millennia of human history [which by the way is what Genesis alleges], not the product of evolutionary development.
Ellis Sandoz limns this issue nicely, to wit:
At the level of common sense, it is evident that human beings have experiences other than sensory perceptions, and it is equally evident that philosophers like Plato and Aristotle explored reality on the basis of experiences far removed from perception. The Socratic "Look and see if this is not the case" does not invite one to survey public opinion but asks one to descend into the psyche, that is, to search reflective consciousness [note: brains per se do not conduct such a search; only minds do]. Moreover, it is evident that the primary nonsensory modes of experience address dimensions of human existence superior in rank and worth to those sensory perception does: experiences of the good, beautiful, and just, of love, friendship, and truth, of all human virtue and vice, and of divine reality. Apperceptive experience is distinguishable from sensory perception and a philosophical science of substance from a natural science of phenomena. Experience of "things" is modeled on the subject–object dichotomy of perception in which the consciousness intends the object of cognition. But such a model or experience and knowing is ultimately insufficient to explain the operations of consciousness with respect to the nonphenomenal reality men approach in moral, aesthetic, and religious experience. Inasmuch as such nonsensory experiences are constitutive of what is distinctive about human existence itself — and of what is most precious to mankind — a purported science of man unable to take account of them is egregiously defective. — "Editor's Introduction," The Collected Works of Eric Voegelin, Vol. 12, 1990And then there are the maunderings of my co-author, Alamo-Girl, and me in our book, Don't Let Science Get You Down, Timothy (2006):
A human being is never consulted about the terms of his coming into the world, nor of his departure from it. It is the essence of the human condition that a man is neither the origin nor the “end” — in the sense of telos, meaning a purpose, or goal — of himself. Meanwhile, in between birth and death, there is a litany of evils to which mortal human nature is subject. “The life of man is really burdened,” as [Eric] Voegelin put it, “with the well-known miseries enumerated by Hesoid. We remember his list of hunger, hard work, disease, early death, and the fear of the injustices to be suffered by the weaker man at the hands of the more powerful — not to mention the problem of Pandora.”I allege that Darwinism is such a Second Reality, an attempt to flee the First Reality of God's making, of which man is designated part and participant.
Notwithstanding, Voegelin continued, “as long as our existence is undeformed by phantasies, these miseries are not experienced as senseless. We understand them as the lot of man, mysterious it is true, but as the lot he has to cope with in the organization and conduct of his life, in the fight for survival, the protection of his dependents, and the resistance to injustice, and in his spiritual and intellectual response to the mystery of existence.”
Now the “lot of man” as just given is a description of the condicio humana, the human condition. It is the very basis for the idea of a common humanity, or of a brotherhood of mankind. It is [our] conjecture that it is possible for a person to take great umbrage at this condicio humana, to deplore and reject it, to see it as a grievous insult to one’s own assumed personal autonomy; and so to take flight in an alternative reality that can be structured more according to one’s own wishes, tastes, and desires. And thus, a Second Reality is born.
So sue me!!!
Best wishes, R7 Rocket.
“In more detail they observed that authentic ‘born again’ Christians are far less likely to accept cults and pseudoscientific beliefs while the irreligious and liberalized Christians (i.e., progressive Catholics, Protestant emergent, NAR, word faith, prosperity gospel) are open to unscientific notions. In fact, these two groups are most disposed toward occultism.”
No surprise here. Same with born-again Christians not having encounters with demonic activity, like UFOs.
One of the legs of radical Atheism, it represent a full-blown religion that parallels each and every Christian belief, though without a god at its foundation.
A good example is comparing the birth rate of patriarchal cultures to non-patriarchal cultures.
Genes are inherited, there are genes that instruct brain neurons how to wire themselves, the basic wiring determines the preprogrammed instinct. Humans behave and learn within the confines of those instincts
No it doesn't. The human brain and behavior of the human is nothing magical.
If so, why did we have revenge attacks, wars? Why do we have courts and police? Why do we Americans have the Bill of Rights with the Second Amendment serving as Liberty's Teeth?
Because if you give a vicious predator Absolute Power, the predator will act according to its nature.
“Genes are inherited, there are genes that instruct brain neurons how to wire themselves, the basic wiring determines the preprogrammed instinct. Humans behave and learn within the confines of those instincts”
Spirited: In other words, evolutionary materialists are nonhuman stewpots consisting of inherited genes from sexless seaweed, trees, dandelions, clams, tumble bugs, cockroaches, reptiles, and male and female DNA from assorted other creatures: vultures, dogs, jackasses, bonobo chimps, etc.
This syncretic genetic mixture comprises the peculiar nonhuman nature of evolutionary materialists, and instructs their “brain neurons how to wire themselves.” It this basic nonhuman wiring that determines the “preprogrammed instincts.” Nonhumans “behave and learn within their confines of those instincts.”
Indeed dear CityCenter: Atheism indeed is "a full-blown religion that parallels each and every Christian belief."
And yet, I suspect atheism does indeed have "a god at its foundation."
So guess who that might be???
At the superficial level, the "god" is the atheist himself. He feels unconstrained to be his own lawgiver at any point in time, according to his own shifting preferences. There is no solidity in the world of an atheist; and any social world composed of atheists would likewise have no solidity and, thus, no stability.
So, where did this miscreant, atheist concept of self-divinization come from?
Simply put, I imagine the atheist inspiration is simply to follow the pattern established by Satan himself.
First, there was a Fall in Heaven; and then, there was a Fall of Man. Satan personally effected the former; and then directly facilitated the latter.
It is said that Satan is the Father of Lies.
It is also said of Satan that, prior to his utterance of the eternally self-devastating words, "non serviam," he was an archangel, a sub-ruler, of God's heavenly kingdom, along with the archangels Michael and Gabriel; and he was highly favored by God, his Creator. His name then was Lucifer, or "Prince of Light."
From what I gather, Lucifer did not take well to the news that God was about to establish a new Creation that would involve the "incarnation" of souls in matter. God hadn't even created matter yet (nor space nor time); so this was understood in the angelic realm as presaging a really big, divinely revolutionary deal. Evidently, God passed over the class of angels (who are also souls) to effect this. His purpose, instead, was to make a new spiritual creation, culminating in a new creature, Man, designated to be His Son and Steward of the new Creation.
I further gather that Lucifer was incensed at being "passed over for promotion," as it were; it would seem there was no place for him in this new Creation.
But he begged to differ: And so he told God, his Father, to "stuff it": "I will no longer serve you."
At the same time, he had been such an influence in the order of the angels that he was able to recruit a goodly part of them — something around a quarter or a third — to follow him in rebellion against the Lord.
And he promised to be the enemy of mankind forevermore. Please read the Book of Job for details.
Thus Lucifer got a new name (Satan).
I don't see a dime's worth of difference between Lucifer's Fall, and the Fall of the angels of his party, and the decision of an atheist to turn his back on God.
The Father of Lies will always try to use the Holy Scriptures, and "each and every Christian belief," by inverting them, to destroy the Faithful. He succeeds by exploiting any baseness he can find in the human person. By "baseness" I mean the propensity to sin, which all men have.
But Satan whispers into our ears: "I will transform thy baseness into personal glory, into the fulfillment of all thy dreams, even unto the status of a god: Just sign on the dotted line."
Truly, he is the Father of Lies; for he has no such power. The only power he has over us is his ability to capitalize on our self-delusions. To our eternal peril.
Thank you so very much, CityCenter, for your deeply perceptive essay/post!
monkey should have bought a Timex, that's why
Monkey short on cash (you know how monkeys are, can't hardly budget to save their own lives), no problem, just head to the beach. and lift one from a turtle.
Spirited: In other words, evolutionary materialists are nonhuman stewpots consisting of inherited genes from sexless seaweed, trees, dandelions, clams, tumble bugs, cockroaches, reptiles, and male and female DNA from assorted other creatures: vultures, dogs, jackasses, bonobo chimps, etc.
Your posts indicate that as a human female, you're acting within the confines of your instincts.
Which is of course, predictable.
Keep in mind, the Communists believed that humans weren’t driven by instinct like other animals. Look how their system created misery and tyranny by ignoring the reality that humans are just animals.
Humans are animals ... and so much more.
Your brazen pretentiousness is not surprising. Goebbels would be proud of you.
“I've seen nothing remotely resembling your description here.”
To “see,” one must look. To quote our FRiend, Boop; “. . . the use of ad hominum attack is a diversionary tactic designed to conceal the paucity of actual understanding of the issues in dispute, or of any good-faith willingness to engage them at all.”
Hands over eyes! Don't look!
“LOL, it would now seem that if we understand metaphysics, we can accept that donkeys can talk, snakes can charm and humans can stay alive inside fishes”
“Indeed, and that diseases are cured by casting out evil spirits...(by those who have been given special powers)! I wonder what evil spirit causes the flu...? :)”
the “Flying Spaghetti Monster” and Zeus make an excellent argument against the existence of God.
Scholars that believe the Bible are “biased fundies” but those who don’t believe the Bible are “honest” and doing “accepted scholarship.”
"If Adam was the perfect creation of the perfect Creator, why did he fall?
“I have led a more Godly life in my Agnosticism than you have in your Bible-thumping one.”
“the cult may demand your membership card back.”
“Are we damned? Unloved? Doesn't it sound a bit cultish (in the insane way, not the nice way) to say that”
“Did God imbue us with rational minds just to waste them?
“Or, perhaps, you may wish to talk biblical “medicine,” and tell me if you regularly visit some medicine doctor who “heals” you by chasing “demons” out of you?”
“Let's be honest and admit that not even the most religious—save for a handful of nutjobs—seek to be "healed" by having “demons” chased out of their bodies. :)”
“I believe unicorn farts smell like gardenias - prove that they don’t.”
“Or, perhaps, you may wish to talk biblical “medicine”, and tell me if you regularly visit some medicine doctor who “heals” you by chasing “demons” out of you?”
“The difference is that I am not obligated to believe fantastic tales and you may be, by virtue of the religion you profess, even if your reason may tell you otherwise. I am free.”
“Coming from a source whose very name is a fraud.”
“If you type louder, will it become true?”
“Culthood is not the glamorous life that you may think it is. I strongly suggest that you abandon any plans that you may have to join the Hare Christians.”
“your post was a hazing ritual for cult membership!”
“In my experience, most people who hold nutty quasi-religious beliefs are way too whacked out to even consider studying science.”
“Don’t forget those evil ‘Geologists’ And them ‘Physicists.’ And don’t even get me started on them damned for all time ‘Astrophysicists’ and ‘Chemists.’”
“Or perhaps you would burn me at the stake while assuring me I’m damned to hell?”
“Racism and Creationism have been frequent bedfellows.”
“a local origin myth of a tribe of Middle-Eastern camel-herders”
“To which ‘God’ do you refer? The name ‘God’ has been applied to numerous deity constructs, many of which are mutually exclusive.”
“Perhaps the intelligent designer [God] is a really late term abortionist.”
“Perhaps we should compare the number of clergymen convicted of child molestation with the number of biology teachers convicted of child molestation.”
“Can you say American Taliban?”
“all your great billowing clouds of smoke strongly suggests you are confused and in doubt on this subject . . . ”
You are not speaking a truth; only expressing your fondest hope. Again, why do you continue to tell me something you know I know?
By the way, quit stealing my lines; go find your own. LOL!
Those of us here defending science (aka "methodological naturalism") are generally not interested in defending atheism (aka "metaphysical naturalism"), and yet that is the issue on which many attack "Darwinism".
Atheistic-"Darwinism" is said to cause and result from every socialistic wickedness known and therefore should be rejected in favor of... of... of... well, why not go all the way and say: young earth creationism?
My point is: many Christian denominations teach that evolution can describe the methodology by which G*d created life on earth, and therefore it's unnecessary to equate evolution "Darwinism" with atheism.
That should wipe out about half the assaults on evolution theory from a religious perspective.
The other half involve actual mechanics of evolution: can purely "random" mutation-changes possibly lead to first, the origins of life itself and second, the development of thousands upon thousands of new species?
"Intelligent Designers" insist that G*d must take a personal hand in certain specific evolutionary innovations, for instance, complex eyes.
A scientist says: there's no physical evidence of that, and indeed many "transitional forms" can be found for every alleged "intelligently designed" feature, suggesting that evolution's "step by step" methodology is indeed adequate to explain them.
Likewise, a "theistic evolutionist" (that's the term used) says:
So, bottom line: the question is not whether science somehow "proves" or "disproves" G*d, but rather, can we see G*d's Hand at work in various scientific theories, such as evolution, or "Big Bang", etc.?
I think, with just a little effort nearly anybody can and, indeed, should.
Methodological naturalism is a strategy for studying the world by which scientists choose not to consider supernatural causes - even as a remote possibility. (Conservapedia)
According to Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga,
“The philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism holds that, for any study of the world to qualify as “scientific,” it cannot refer to God’s creative activity (or any sort of divine activity).”
The possibility of divine intervention in nature is not only neglected, but positively dismissed.
“The methods of science, it is claimed, “give us no purchase” on theological propositions—even if the latter are true—and theology therefore cannot influence scientific explanation or theory justification. Alvin Plantinga, Department of Philosophy, Decio Hall, University of Notre Dame
Whether it is called natural science and evolution or methodological naturalism it imperiously demands the exclusion of everything supernatural in favor of the closed box of naturalism: void, matter and energy working in and through matter.
As void, matter (chemicals) and alchemical energy acting on chemicals does not, can not, and never has produced life, let alone conscious life, natural science adherents cannot allow ontological questions to be asked, thus they are rabidly zealous in the quashing of such questions by way of psychological abuse, terror, ruthless ridicule, relentless criticism, slander and even physical death whenever total power falls into the hands of the worst of them, as was the case in the Soviet Empire.
After much thought C.S. Lewis concluded that the entire purpose of natural science is to keep God out and furthermore, Evolution is the Biggest Lie at the center of a vast, interlocking system of lies.
YAHOS: "These “fans” mock Christians with sneering references to “Demonic” possession and accusations of the adoption of the principal that a lie, told often enough, acquires a semblance of truth by virtue of sheer repetition."
Your word "fans" here refers to your post #81, regarding Richard Dawkins, where you challenge: "There’s nothing to prevent you from correcting his fans on FR..".
When I responded that I'd never seen such fans, you shape-shift to saying: "these 'fans' mock Christians..." and then produce a totally un-sourced listing of 27 alleged "mockings" of Christians.
Of course, I don't condone mocking Christians (or Christians pretending to feel "mocked" by normal conversations).
But none of your 27 quotes can be identified as a "fan" of Dawkins, only three refer to "demons", and none to the repetition of lies.
Furthermore, you never reveal what provoked each response, so we might reasonably assume there was a good deal of mocking going the other way as well.
Here's what I'd consider a traditionalist's "mocking" of science in general and evolution specifically, from the article above:
I'd call that "mocking" as serious as anything YHAOS can copy and paste from previous Free Republic threads.
Indeed, its strident language fairly invites a, ahem, spirited response.
But you won't find that same level of vituperation being returned by non-traditionalists, because generally, that's not the kind of people we are, FRiends.
You still don't "get it", do you?
Science itself "demands" nothing, except adherence to the definition of the word "science": natural explanations for natural processes.
Science itself makes no claims -- philosophical, metaphysical, ontological or otherwise -- to be true, True, complete or even necessarily accurate, except, except: in the practical sense of "what works".
Science is and only is a methodology which often produces results that help humans comprehend our otherwise incomprehensible material universe.
Yes, of course, there are atheists who grab onto the practical working assumptions of science and apotheosize them up to the levels of philosophy and theology.
But they are your problem, not science itself, or those many scientists who were and are Christians.
Well, I think your answer was actually quite deeper than my post, :-) But it’s something I’ve been thinking about for a long time (as are many others, I expect).
Militant Atheism is not that different from any other belief system when it becomes radicalized, but I think it’s far more damaging in the end and history proves that out. Not only because it damns people to Hell, but because it’s far more murderous in the way it deals with non-believers than almost any other ideology. It doesn’t just sit in disagreement, but it seeks to destroy all those who interfere with it.
The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. What is the fruit of Atheism? It’s a kin to an insatiable appetite that can never be satisfied. Just gobbles up everything in sight and then blames endlessly when there is nothing left.
To cite Sir Alex, "Now -- there's a name I've not heard in a long, long time..."
~~~~~~~~~~~
One can only wonder how the homosexuals, the pro-abortionist and the free condom crowd would react if they were ever confronted by their real Leader -- in all his sulfurous, evil glory...
It's a true pity that even those who occupy even the most powerful and conservative of church pulpits seem fearful to utter his name nowadays -- or, even, acknowledge that he exists. But, then, that shouldn't surprise us, since they also seem to avoid all mention of the results of his handiwork -- sin -- as if the mere mention of it would instantly empty their revenue-producing pews.
Satan is "alive and well on Planet Earth" -- and, from all current appearances, he is well along on the path to victory...
~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh, well, at least my tagline agrees with me... '-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.