Posted on 07/24/2003 1:55:39 PM PDT by Mr.Atos
I haven't seen the resolution... but who could say anything against science?
The whole apparatus of scientism is cult-like from the ceremonial white lab coats down to the ... ritualized curses --- hurled at Christians. And now...the sacrifices on the strange biotech altars. The hominid skeletons serve the role of hallowed saints' relics.
93 Posted on 08/08/2001 21:03:43 PDT by veritas_in_enigma
That's basically correct as far as I can tell. There are Heraclitean and atomistic aspects, of course, which one also finds in ancient Greek pre-Socratic philosophy, but the adherents of scientific materialism don't seem to really understand philosophy that well. You'll notice those responding who hold specific grudges against Christianity - considered by most intellectual historians as a rather integral contributor to the development of modern science - they ingnore as far as possible any positive accounts of Christians, like Newton's considerations of light having some background in the Middle Ages, Robert Grosseteste, etc.Reality has to be understood to have a certain order in order for it to be intelligible and in the Christian tradition the order of nature and the universe have been understood as part of the providential order of God. But with the type of scientism which fetishizes empirical methods for establishing knowledge, there is a subtle depreciation of the intellect's capacity to comprehend rationally a pervading order to reality as such. It's hard to figure why one would fantasize that the empirical methods of scientific materialism, cancelling the intelligibility of the consciousness of the knower, reveal EVIDENCE negating the propositions of Christian theology, the existence of God, the immortality of the soul, the divinity of Christ, the drama of redemption, distinctions between moral good and evil. The only way they can make it do that is by reverting to a mythological ideology which is merely willed as being the true account of ultimate reality. The anthropological rituals with the monkey bones, the evolutionary charts, etc. these do not establish what is really the reductionistic materialism of this Weltanschauung. That is a function of the will of the materialist as it attempts to impose this imaginary picture of reality - a materialistic, Epicurean universe. Mobile matter without the Logos. There is no "scientific" reason to accept this ideological vision as "proven." It's not. It's just the product of the imagination, largely, of agnostics or atheists with sex hang-ups and grudges against Christianity. It's an obsessive complex. The pictures of the monkeys, the apes, the hominids, etc. play the same "mythical" role (although on a different level) as, say, the illustrated Children's Bible. They are comforted by these images. "The Beast Within." They give them a "story" (a mythos) which structures the range of emotions and sentiments which one finds among those ... disturbed people --- who read the Ayn Rand books and frequent Science Fiction conventions. Same basic emotional types. Hence, some of the threatening and extreme rhetoric in the anti-Christian tirades. You do find troubled, confused souls among those who take this path. The variations of the ad hominem, attacking Jesus and so forth. The study of religion,theology, ethics, and spiritual psychology is a highly sophisticated philosophical discipline which empirical or laboratory science in now way destroys (in the fantastic manner imagined by such proponents). At any rate, we'll all find out some day. Does scientific materialism offer any exhaustive explanations of, say, Love? Logically, explore propositional responses to the question "what is love" and try to make it make sense in an absurd, materialistic universe that doesn't have a meaning or a purpose for humanity. That's their position. Weird. It doesn't seem at all clear that such a position is "proven" by empirical "science." There are realities and verities to human existence beyond anatomy charts and the Smithsonian natural history narratives. Nothing Darwin or Carl Sagan ever did changes that.
160 Posted on 08/12/2001 17:06:44 PDT by veritas_in_enigma
And *sigh*...being nice will surely take alotta fun out of this, but ok, deal,....fresh start.
I guess I'll have to slum over to DemoRat Underground to have any fun now
I'm not convinced that's true.
There are some really interesting things about music worth discussing. For example, instruments and objects judged to have a musical sound as opposed to noise -- bells, horns, stretched strings, as opposed to garbage can lids -- have overtones that are rational multiples of the primary frequency (i.e. thirds, fourths, fifths, sevenths). The original musical scles of the Greeks matched these intervals.
But this didn't allow transposing songs to different keys, and didn't allow instruments having a different natural pitch to play together.
So the tempered scale was invented. Now our notes are separated from each other by a ratio of 21/12. This means that all starting notes for any song are equivalent, because every note is separated from its neighbors by the same interval.
But the downside is that complex chords are now dissonant with their own overtones. This is really obvious with pipe organs.
So one of the mysteries of music is how it seem so right, when the western musical scale is unrelated to any natural phenomenon and clashes with our sense of what natural sounds are "musical".
Yeah. Hee, hee. The obsession with the picture charts of the various hominids is a bit much. Sort of like the hairy creature Bill Hurt metamorphosed into in "Altered States." Now, the post-empirical ideological interpretation in which man is proposed merely as some sort of "advanced" chimpanzee is going beyond the evidence. There's no empirical justification for asserting that man (Homo sapiens) is a "merely" anything. The attempt to deny the spiritual element in man, God's image, etc., is not justified by any observations. Why does a scientific materialist want to do that? You have to look at other motivations, emotional factors, the personality type. Most atheists of this type tend to be left-brain dominant, slightly alienated from natural affections, etc. One guess might be that they were not held very often by their mothers when they were infants. That was almost certainly true of the types involved in the debates in Victorian England. There's that book _Faith of the Fatherless_ that puts some of this in perspective. Some have difficulty believing in a loving God because they did not feel much love from their parents. Nietzsche's a classic case of a boy who was whipped and caned by a cruel father. You sort of have to feel sorry for him. And, of course, he became a raving lunatic. Wherever you have someone with problems with ... affection --- a tendency toward cruelty, and sadistic tendencies in general, you have to look at the childhood experience and psychodrama. And, of course, with materialistic evolution, there's a desire to define reality as essentially the struggle for the "survival of the fittest," mutually sadistic rivalry between humans - Strife.
172 Posted on 08/13/2001 15:16:53 PDT by veritas_in_enigma
Do you believe that dogs evolved from wolves? (I ask that because most creationists I have discussed this with accept that as an example of "micro-evolution" or "adaptation within a created kind"). If you do believe that dogs evolved from wolves, do you wonder why we still have wolves?
Those are valid points. To some degree. Probably defining a "rational person" with a code of morality goes beyond the epistemological methods of empirical science, just a tad. A rational philosophy can be legitimate and even the ethical writings of the pre-Christian Aristotle and Cicero display this. Whether the universe exhibits an order, an intelligent design, open to cosmological theism, etc., is up to the ... professional --- scientists to debate. That's a valid discussion. One could propose the utilitarian benefits to society of people honoring theistic ethical codes like the Judaeo-Christian ones. Prohibition of murder, theft and so forth. A sense of the intrinsic worth and sacredness of the individual person. It's a philosophical debate whether or even how this might be "known" and understood. How do we KNOW it is wrong to kill a person and so forth. I welcome that type of discussion. Thanks for raising the topics. The points are well taken. I think these types of friendly discussions, with some differences of opinion or interpretation, are healthy for a free and open society.
I for one am glad that you are here! Great testimony...
Suffice it to say that he looks like a large hamster.
"Love" is the...uh... monkey wrench (pardon the pub) in the evolutionary paradigm. If, anthropologically speaking, we find behaviour which tends to go against the "survival of the fittest," how does that fit in the paradigm? So, they just bracket that. Human behaviour at its deepest and most fundamental levels doesn't necessarily fit the ... Darwinoid --- mythology. And, of course, not all scientists fit the Ubermensch image of physical excellence of the myth. The mythology becomes caught up in the fantasy images and physique preferences of the Darwinoid.Shouldn't we all be perfect 7-ft Olympians by now, according to the myth? That's the weird part. It's just hard to figure why so much emotionalism accompanies the claims. Why get excited about it if the universe is a meaningless, clockwork machine without any purpose? What difference would it make one way or the other?
175 Posted on 08/13/2001 17:22:34 PDT by veritas_in_enigma
We are social critters. We need each other to survive, because individually we are weak and make a great meal for a goodly number of predators. Plus, individually, we have a hard time procuring that which we need to survive. Because we need to work as teams, trust is paramount. The great ethical philosophies, including those predating Christianity, realized this. The golden rule cropped up independently in a half dozen civilizations simply because it is rational and promotes survival. One did not need to be a God-fearing Christian to realize this.
NOTE: THAT is NOT my dog!!
Every Christmas time on "rock" radio stations they play Emerson Lake and Palmer's "I believe in Father Christmas" constantly. THe little keyboard part in the middle is from Lt. Kije.
Prokofiev also wrote the Romeo and Juliet Ballet parts of which would be instantly recognized by most people.
Stravisnky is my favorite, but I think he emigrated from Russia around WWI?
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.