Posted on 05/01/2011 7:24:18 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
The squabble between Darwin lobbyists who openly hate religion and those who only quietly disdain it grows ever more personal, bitter and pathetic. On one side, evangelizing New or "Gnu" (ha ha) Atheists like Jerry Coyne and his acolytes at Why Evolution Is True. Dr. Coyne is a biologist who teaches and ostensibly researches at the University of Chicago but has a heck of a lot of free time on his hands for blogging and posting pictures of cute cats.
On the other side, so-called accommodationists like the crowd at the National Center for Science Education, who attack the New Atheists for the political offense of being rude to religious believers and supposedly messing up the alliance between religious and irreligious Darwinists.
I say "supposedly" because there's no evidence any substantial body of opinion is actually being changed on religion or evolution by anything the open haters or the quiet disdainers say. Everyone seems to seriously think they're either going to defeat religion, or merely "creationism," or both by blogging for an audience of fellow Darwinists.
Want to see what I mean? This is all pretty strictly a battle of stinkbugs in a bottle. Try to follow it without getting a headache.
Coyne recently drew excited applause from fellow biologist-atheist-blogger PZ Myers for Coyne's "open letter" (published on his blog) to the NCSE and its British equivalent, the British Centre for Science Education. In the letter, Coyne took umbrage at criticism of the New Atheists, mostly on blogs, emanating from the two accommodationist organizations. He vowed that,
We will continue to answer the misguided attacks [on the New Atheists] by people like Josh Rosenau, Roger Stanyard, and Nick Matzke so long as they keep mounting those attacks.Like the NCSE, the BCSE seeks to pump up Darwin in the public mind without scaring religious people. This guy called Stanyard at the BCSE complains of losing a night's sleep over the nastiness of the rhetoric on Coyne's blog. Coyne in turn complained that Stanyard complained that a blog commenter complained that Nick Matzke, formerly of the NCSE, is like "vermin." Coyne also hit out at blogger Jason Rosenhouse for an "epic"-length blog post complaining of New Atheist "incivility." In the blog, Rosenhouse, who teaches math at James Madison University, wrote an update about how he had revised an insulting comment about the NCSE's Josh Rosenau that he, Rosenhouse, made in a previous version of the post.
That last bit briefly confused me. In occasionally skimming the writings of Jason Rosenhouse and Josh Rosenau in the past, I realized now I had been assuming they were the same person. They are not!
It goes on and on. In the course of his own blog post, Professor Coyne disavowed name-calling and berated Stanyard (remember him? The British guy) for "glomming onto" the Matzke-vermin insult like "white on rice, or Kwok on a Leica." What's a Kwok? Not a what but a who -- John Kwok, presumably a pseudonym, one of the most tirelessly obsessive commenters on Darwinist blog sites. Besides lashing at intelligent design, he often writes of his interest in photographic gear such as a camera by Leica. I have the impression that Kwok irritates even fellow Darwinists.
There's no need to keep all the names straight in your head. I certainly can't. I'm only taking your time, recounting just a small part of one confused exchange, to illustrate the culture of these Darwinists who write so impassionedly about religion, whether for abolishing it or befriending it. Writes Coyne in reply to Stanyard,
I'd suggest, then, that you lay off telling us what to do until you've read about our goals. The fact is that we'll always be fighting creationism until religion goes away, and when it does the fight will be over, as it is in Scandinavia.A skeptic might suggest that turning America into Scandinavia, as far as religion goes, is an outsized goal, more like a delusion, for this group as they sit hunched over their computers shooting intemperate comments back and forth at each other all day. Or in poor Stanyard's case, all night.
There's a feverish, terrarium-like and oxygen-starved quality to this world of online Darwinists and atheists. It could only be sustained by the isolation of the Internet. They don't seem to realize that the public accepts Darwinism to the extent it does -- which is not much -- primarily because of what William James would call the sheer, simple "prestige" that the opinion grants. Arguments and evidence have little to do with it.
The prestige of Darwinism is not going to be affected by how the battle between Jerry Coyne and the NCSE turns out. New Atheist arguments are hobbled by the same isolation from what people think and feel. I have not yet read anything by any of these gentlemen or ladies, whether the open haters or the quiet disdainers, that conveys anything like a real comprehension of religious feeling or thought.
Even as they fight over the most effective way to relate to "religion," the open atheists and the accomodationists speak of an abstraction, a cartoon, that no actual religious person would recognize. No one is going to be persuaded if he doesn't already wish to be persuaded for other personal reasons. No faith is under threat from the likes of Jerry Coyne.
But not on faith, which is the crux of the discussion! So, isn't faith not important for salvation in such an instance?
"Ignorantia juris non excusat" depends on what those tribals consider to be the laws of salvation.
Illegal immigration is just that - illegal. It must be stopped without exception. Amnesty is a travesty of justice on those who've followed the rules.
Now answer mine.
Don't be so hard on yourself. This is for those who claim to be worried about "primitive tribes who "never heard the gospel":
As we have said before, the world is only relatively intelligible because it is absolutely unintelligible. In other words, it is only because the world is created that we can understand it at all.
But for the same reason, we can never completely understand it, since we can never be the Creator. Therefore, in the ultimate sense, the cosmos too pours out its own inexhaustible stream of truth and beauty.
In Salt of the Earth, Ratzinger is asked how many ways there are to God. His answer may surprise you: "As many as there are people."
For otherwise we wouldn't be persons, nor could God be One.
What part of sufficiency do you not understand? The temperature of the "ignorant" sinner's left leg is of no consequence to salvation. But salvation is the result of a judgement. The true believer is acquitted "automatically". The non believer is not. The ignorant is judged individually. Now if you mean to equate lack of faith with ignorance, you are wrong.
"Ignorantia juris non excusat" depends on what those tribals consider to be the laws of salvation.
What? Ignorance means ignorance.
Illegal immigration is just that - illegal. It must be stopped without exception. Amnesty is a travesty of justice on those who've followed the rules.
So you agree with Iran and North Korea when they imprison lost hikers?
What part of obfuscation don't you understand? It's not the temperature of anyone's appendages that's being discussed, but the lack of faith among the remote tribals in the deity mentioned by the dogma of your acceptance. If they are saved in spite of not professing faith in your deity, then their lack of faith has allowed them to be saved, which then renders faith to not be an absolute necessity.
What?
Tempers! Tempers!
Ignorance means ignorance.
Yes, and the tribals are saved in spite of their ignorance, and therefore, lack of faith, in YOUR deity.
So you agree with Iran and North Korea when they imprison lost hikers?
You tell me, by first defining what 'illegal immigrant' means.
It’s a witch trial now, LOL!
See what the discussion devolves into, when the opponent has no answers!
Except in this case the "Law" is only someone's belief, to which only some people subsctribe on faith alone, which in and of itself is not a proof that it exists.
Amazing how your mind concludes things incorrectly. "What?" was a question pointed at your gobbledygook "answer".
It's not the temperature of anyone's appendages that's being discussed, but the lack of faith among the remote tribals in the deity mentioned by the dogma of your acceptance."
Duh! That is why I mentioned temperature in the first place(lack of relevance, faith re ignorance). And what is being discussed is not lack of faith. It is lack of knowledge(or ignorance).
Yes, and the tribals are saved in spite of their ignorance, and therefore, lack of faith, in YOUR deity.
Non sequitur. You cannot equate ignorance and lack of faith. Which you are attempting to do.
You tell me, by first defining what 'illegal immigrant' means.
You can't weasel out that way, after all you, just tried the "it depends" tack with the tribals.
So, does that include agnostics (like me) and atheists as well? Or do they not count as "people"?
You know we used to have philosophers in my college who left their magnum opuses on the walls of private little rooms people go to every now and then. It was a library, a true public forum (although segregated by gender) before Internet (sans mods!), where people poured out their feelings and beliefs and observations, and wisdom.
But in the final analysis it is all about the self. We define the world as we see it, according to our experience. It's solipsism no matter how you you turn it around, even though no one will admit it. It gets in the way of other human "qualities", such as egotism and elitism.
Oh, I see. So, this isolated tribal community deep in the Nicobar Islands is somehow, telepathically, supposed to know who your god is, and more importantly, have faith in this god, for their salvation? The knowledge pertains to your deity. Otherwise, what is to say that the faith of the tribal isn't in Krishna?
Gobbledygook
Your replies, and tactics, so far.
You cannot equate ignorance and lack of faith. Which you are attempting to do.
So, tell me, how that tribal from the Nicobar Island is supposed to know about Jesus' dad.
You can't weasel out that way, after all you, just tried the "it depends" tack with the tribals.
I'm not "weaseling" out anywhere. I've already trapped you in your own trap; I saw you coming while you missed my studying your childish plot. Define "illegal immigrant" first.
Wouldn't be the first...all in the name of someone's deity.
The plot was as funny as it was the product of idiocy.
First, he tries to entrap by trying get me to say that I support illegal immigration. That having failed, he then tries to equate accidental trespassing with deliberate, illegal immigration, and get to accuse me of supporting Iran and North Korea!
Obfuscation is a specialty art, and he’s barely practised to feel lucky enough to get away, unnoticed!
Have I mentioned who my god is? I have addressed your question whether lack of knowledge is exculpatory. You keep trying to convert that into a lack of faith. You can't do that.
Your replies, and tactics, so far.
Ahh, the "no I am not, you are" argument.
So, tell me, how that tribal from the Nicobar Island is supposed to know about Jesus' dad.
They either know or don't know. They don't know if they have never received the gospel. But we know that those islands have received missionaries.
I'm not "weaseling" out anywhere. I've already trapped you in your own trap; I saw you coming while you missed my studying your childish plot. Define "illegal immigrant" first.
The "Calvin and Hobbes" defense. You better adjust your transmogrifier. Again, it does not matter what the content of the law is, if the person charged does not know it(when discussing "Ignorantia juris non excusat").
But we know that those islands have received missionaries.
You do? And that gets all of the tribals to be so alien toward outsiders that they even attack people who bring them food (throwing spears at aid helicopters!)?
Also, missionaries supposedly received by some ancestral generation hundreds of years ago somehow puts all future generations, for all of time, under your adopted dogma's faith test? Mind you, I only need to force you to admit just one exception to the rule that salvation can only come through faith in the deity of your chosen dogma, to bring the whole house of cards down.
AC: But I though faith = knowledge. Then, lack of faith must = ignorance. Don't you have to know what you believe in?
JCB, I think they are talking about acceptance, not knowledge. In other words, if you know are made aware of someone's deity you are no longer ignorant of it, and if you refuse to accept it as a deity, then you are "guilty." But if you never heard of such god, then you are ignorant and possibly "innocent" enough to be saved. :)
As usual there is a contradiction, or disagreement on this issue (what else is new?), because some believers (at least among Christians) hold that faith is not a conscious decision, but God's election, a matter of predestination.
Others believe that it is your decision, and responsibility to submit once you hear. But herein lies the problem: you have to have the "eyes" and the" ears" to see and hear the Gospel or else you will not discern the truth and will not accept it.
And who gives the "eyes" and the "ears" necessary for that? God, of course...so if you are born handicapped, spiritually blind and deaf, how can you bear guilt for your misfortune?
This is where it seems the "ignorance of the law is no excuse" comes it. You are still "guilty" if you are born handicapped! :) It's a good thing we don't follow such thinking in the secular world or else we would just say to the handicapped who can't get into an elevatir: "Tough! Take the stairs, loser!"
But, what's really interesting it to recount how many people have been torched to death, hanged or beheaded for not accepting someone's deity instead of leaving it up to that deity to exact its judgment. There is never a lack of people who take it upon themselves to do the judging and punishing in the name of their God.
Sauce for the goose...
You are ignored.
Well, you know how it works, if you don't believe in their God then you must be unAmerican, possibly Islamofascist, Communist, or at least a pro gay, pro abortion pro illegal immigration 0bama supporter. That's the tactic when they can't answer simple questions.
I wasn’t counting on a coherent response from you, anyway, LOL!
No, faith does not equal knowledge. You may know(or be informed) and not have faith.
This is where it seems the "ignorance of the law is no excuse" comes it. You are still "guilty" if you are born handicapped!
In what case?
It's solipsism all right — as long as you stick to the horizontal line, and refuse to acknowledge the vertical.... You're locked into endless meaninglessness thereby.
And this does seem to be your "problem," dear kosta. JMHO FWIW.
snip: “But in the final analysis it is all about the self. We define the world as we see it, according to our experience. It’s solipsism no matter how you you turn it around, even though no one will admit it. It gets in the way of other human “qualities”, such as egotism and elitism.”
Spirited: Solipsism does not “get in the way” of egotism and elitism. Solipsism IS egotism and elitism. The solipsists’ soul is inward and downward turned. It is materialized, thus unable to know anything more than narcissistic self, inflated envy, hate, resentment, lusts and other out-of-control appetites. Consequently, it is amoral, paranoid, and prone to belief in very peculiar ideas, such as the notion that all that exists are atoms bumping around in a void.
Read on: “Calling Evil By Its’ Name”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2701539/posts
“Fifth, Progressive “elites” are nihilists. Their souls are materialized (turned inward), thus they are prisoners of their own cosmically-inflated egos, out-of-control envy, lusts, perversions, greed, gluttony, and wrath as well as of afflictions of the mind-—paranoia, fear of the void, anxiety dreams, evil fantasies, and peculiar ideas.
Believing in nothing higher than “self,” they therefore know only envy, greed, hatred, vengeance, and violence. Their consciences are depraved and their reason has degenerated into sophistry. They are revolutionaries of the void.
The Evil as Gods
“Pride is the beginning of all sin...for it was (pride) that overthrew the devil, from whom arose the origin of sin, and who, through...envy, overturned (man)...For the serpent, seeking a way to enter...sought the door of pride, when he declared, “You shall be as gods.” That is why it is written, “Pride is the beginning of all sin,” and “The beginning of the pride of man is to fall away from God.” (”On Nature and Grace 29:33,” Augustine)
While most Americans pray to God the Father Almighty Who created all men in His spiritual image, Americas’ Progressive god-men:
“...prays to themselves as saviors of the planet and as shapers of mankind in their own image,” observes Angelo M. Codevilla in his insightful essay, “The Ruling Class: How They Corrupted America and What We Can Do About It.” (p. xix)
As gods, the hypocritical Ruling Class naturally think Americans are completely unfit to run their own lives, yet morality and common sense are anathema to them. Calling our attention to the amorality and hypocrisy of the Ruling Class, Codevilla notes that since any:
“standard of right and wrong (is) beyond the Ruling Class’....self-conception, its greatest concern has been to denigrate the American people’s devotion to God, because the Ruling Class accepts no standard it cannot control.” (ibid, p. xx)
To preserve its’ delusional self-conception as gods, the Ruling Class stealthily replaced God the Father with Darwinism (materialist monism), the Bible with scientism, orthodox priests with pseudo- priests of science such as the babbling sophist Richard Dawkins, and the First Commandment with “Thou shall worship no other God but the Ruling Class.”
The Evil as Sophists
Though the evil view themselves as faultless, in reality their conscience is depraved, and a depraved conscience is the most destructive force in political, social, economic, and cultural life. This is because though the intellect remains intact, reason is warped and peculiarly inverted, thus useless for pursuit of the good, the just and the true. In short, guided by a depraved conscience, reason is used in pursuit of the preservation of self-image at any cost. This is sophistry.
In a penetrating analysis of sophistry, J. Budziszewski observes that the sophists’ view of reality is paradoxical because it ultimately denies reality. Sophists are shock troopers of evil says Budziszewski, and according to their satanically-inverted view of reality:
“Man is the measure of all things, but man has no fixed nature. Man measures all things by his words, but words have no fixed meanings. Language is not an instrument for finding truth, but for changing it. Those who can master it, master all. It is a good creed for rogues, and commends itself to tyrants in every age.” (What We Can’t Not Know, Budziszewski, p. 167)
Evil Sophistry as Religion
Sophistry is the religion of the depraved Ruling Class. Sophistry says autonomous man is a free-thinker, thus the maker of his own truth and morality even though sophistry denies the reality of both truth and morality. It says depraved man can unmake and then remake himself. Thus man is free to divinize himself as in days of old. Males can be females and females can now be males, or they can be androgynous, that is, transgender.
Sophistry’s’ favorite Scripture is “judge not.” The only judgment is the judgment against moral judgment. The only sin is the idea that sin exists. The only truth is the idea that truth does not exist. Evil is the idea that evil exists. The greatest evil of all however, is to dissent against the Ruling Class.
Sophists are braggarts who love to boast of their reason, yet reason is actually escape from reason. By way of unreason, brazenly arrogant sophists claim that God is dead and evolutionary theory is absolutely true, but sophistry says that words have no fixed meaning. There is no truth in sophistry. Therefore, God is not dead but rather evolutionary theory is, for as it must begin with the spontaneous generation of something from nothing, then Darwinism is also nothing. This means that Godless evolutionary theory is as meaningless as spontaneous generation and the much-vaunted reason of sophists.
Sophistry is all the rage in contemporary America, even though it prefers longer, more intellectual sounding names to dupe the gullible. Thus for example, it calls itself postmodernism, epistemological relativism, antifoundationalism, pragmatism, situational ethics, sensitivity training, pluralism, multiculturalism, interfaith, evolutionary humanism, transhumanism, positivism, rationalism, and progressivism. “
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.