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.
You can build a whole theology on either premise.
If he created an illusion of goodness just to fool you into believing there is goodness in God and the universe, you can't possibly know, because you only know what the evil God wants you to know.
That reminds me of Yigal, an Israeli intel officer I had a chance to meet when I was in the Navy, who joked with his Catholic girlfriend by saying "what if, at the Pearle Gates, instead of St. Peter you find yourself face top face with Mohammad?" She didn't take too well to the joke... :)
I think that is game, set and match, James : ) Very good work.
Thanks!
:^)
:D
Steve Martin standing at the Pearly Gates with St. Peter after his death: "Aw man... In college they said this was all bullsh*t!"
Speaking of Steve Martin... Atheist Song - First hymnal for Atheists
No miracles for amputations.
I would have held out for a Hucklebee button too : )
Can we get a new list of Presidential candidates and start over please?
That's curious, isn't it...however, lizards get new tails.
I'm very pessimistic about the future of the Republican party. I think it made a drastic wrong turn when it embraced that blowhard jerk Jerry Falwell and the other 'born againers' back in the early 80's. For me it's been creeping closer and closer towards circling the drain ever since. Mixing of politics and religion is never a good thing.
Now look at what we got to choose from. All the choices are garbage on both sides of the aisle. The only thing Obama got going for him is he's a White Sox fan. I think baseball is much more important to America than politics, so I don't mind Obama as much many (nice knowing you guys if this gets me a zot!) I think the last guy I even wanted to vote for was Jack Kemp, and that was so long ago I can't remember what I liked about him!
I have a crazy theory that just may be right - I believe the most solid "conservative" block of voters are completely ignored by the Republican Party, and that's African-American women. I've worked with many women in this category in my life, and to me they are truly very died in the wool conservative in their mindset. I don't have any at hand solutions for how to bring black women into to the Republican tent, but I think the solution may lie with them. I guess the first thing we need to do is find some way to may these Tea Party rallies look a little less like toothless Klan rallies without the pointy hoods.
Whew... we gotta lotta work to do, and it doesn't help that half the Party now seems to be proud to be uneducated toothless gits that wants political candidates that reflect them in that they ain't all elited up with too much of that book learnin' stuff.
When you mention ‘ought’, what do you really mean?
I was referring to the demands the morality makes on us, and specifically, a necessary foundation or source of their authority.
When you mention ‘ought’, what do you really mean? How would you make a moral decision in a dilemma - say, for example, in a mother and child scenario where you have the option of intervening to save only one of the two. What decision processes would you undergo to decide what you ought to do?
I note in passing that moral dilemmas such as this do make for very interesting thought experiments in normative ethics but situations like this are not commonplace occurrences in one's life. I am more interested in the ontological foundation of morality because if there is no firm meta ethical foundation for morality itself then questions such as you have posed are, in the final analysis, actually meaningless. If the physical universe of matter and energy, physical objects, properties, events, and processes governed by physical laws are is all there is, then there is nothing normative about it.
If there is no such thing as a moral fact and there doesn't exist anything that is morally wrong, then literally nothing can be ruled out by arguments with only non-moral premises. So my preliminary answer to the moral dilemma you have posed is that on a naturalistic basis where only physical forces are at work it wouldn't make any difference whether you save the mother or the child, or do nothing, or deliberately kill one of them or both of them. There wouldn't be anything wrong with killing one of two persons where otherwise both would live, like an abortionist, or even killing both of them just for the fun of it, like Ted Bundy.
Is There an Evolutionary Foundation for Human Morality?
Cordially,
G, no one is doubting that the thousands "saw" the Sun falling but that we know the Sun wasn't actually falling. I don't doubt that Paul necessarily "saw" risen Christ on the way to Damascus but that it was necessarily the risen Christ. I don't doubt that the reporter "saw" a red beret but know that it was not the red beret he saw. It is very likely that hundreds believed they "saw" the risen Jesus, but it is also very likely that what they saw was not the risen Jesus.
It is the gross scenario that remains intact kosta.
Sure, the appearance is there, but ti is not what they thought it was. In other words, the interpretation of the event is not reliable.
The apostles were relating an event 50 days prior.
How so? Because it was written in 'memoirs' collected decades later, and subsequently 'doctored' by various scribes to fit the doctrine? You are willing to assume a great deal in order to convince yourself of that, imo.
What is the important point - the rifle being pointed at him, whats the important point - the tomb was found to be empty
The rifle is pointed, David believed at him, but you don;t know who the solider held in his sights; it could have been someone immediately behind David. The same thing with the tomb. The tomb was empty. How it dog to be that way no one knows for sure. We can identify the suspects who might have a motive.
And, BTW, David Tereshchuk testified shortly after the incident to the British Army commission which subsequently dismissed the charges. It was Tony Blair who revamped the issue in the late 1990's by asking for a new commission.
So, this was not the first time David Tereshchuk "remembered" this event. It actually happened immediately after it. His mind created a an image which, despite facts to the contrary, persists. That's what makes it pertinent. There were witnesses who to their last breath claimed the Sun was falling at Fatima in 1917.
How does that grab me? WOW OH WOW!!! That was a fantastic treatise. Thank you so much for posting it.
Who are the "witnesses" and how can you ascertain that they really existed? This is like some commercials who give customers (paid to promote the product) as John B., Sarah L, Patric W, etc. That's just too naive, imo.
"wanted to see" - addressed already - nothing prepared them for an empty tomb kosta.
Who says there was an empty tomb? The whole story could have been conjured up, the body stolen and reburied. besides, Paul how can you say they weren't prepared when Paul claims Christ was raised on the third day ? Apparently, the scriptures would have prepared them for an empty tomb. Trouble is, just which scriptures?
If the body was there - the opponents of Christianity would have produced it - instead of trying to explain it away
Bodies can be relocated. How could the opponents produce the body?
You have the women who found it empty, you have the disciples who found it empty and you have the guards and high priests who found it empty. Please specify further kosta, because your unreliable witness theory is just not up to the task of accounting for ALL of the facts and eyewitness testimony
The Gospel accounts vary a great deal as to that part, which women, angels, men, who got there first, etc. They couldn't simply ask the women if they were there and get the story straight?
Facts? Facts are photographs, G, not copies of copies of copies of copies, decades and centuries removed fror the "original" accounts. At best, we have oral (hearsay) accounts that were written and rewritten. The empty tomb is just that, a tomb with a body removed, by some presumed resurrected, and by others (more realistically) presumed stolen and reburied. It's inconclusive.
No they don't - yet that is exactly what the disciples saw and taught from day one
They didn't see him die (none of them was there, save for one, presumably John), and none of them saw him get up after being dead for three days and walk away. Why, even after 40 days following this miraculous event, the same disciples gathered at Galilee before Jesus "went up" and Matthew 28:17 states some worshiped him but "some doubted" (KJV). Obviously that is not what they taught from day one. If people who wlaked wiht preusmbaly risen Jesus doubted him that should mean something. And we odn;t have their accounts, conveniently.
As I've pointed out - if the tomb wasn't empty - they would have been exposed very easily. And it is highly unlikely that they removed the body - they feared for their life and a scrap with roman guards was the last thing on their mind.
You are reading a single biased source, the official story Christians made up. I am sure you wouldn't trust the official version of the DU or Pravda. Why make exceptions. We don't know for sure if any of this took place. We only know what's written for public consumption. The Bible is not conclusive evidence, unless you want to a pirori believe a one-party line.
The evidence of the testimony of eyewitnesses - friendly and hostile, up to 500 seeing Jesus at one time - times where he appeared unexpectedly (unlike fatima where an apparation was expected)
We have evidence that as many as 10,000 "eyewitnesses" can be wrong. There are no hostile witnesses in the Gospels, there are no non-Christian stories to corroborate, there are no original documents, and so on and on. It's inconclusive, G, that's the only intellectually honest conclusion one can draw, imo.
Oh, I forgot. According to the Fatima children, who supposedly saw Virgin Mary, the Sun event was not described. They only communicated that Virgin Mary told them she will "give them a sign" if certain conditions were met. No specific description of this "sign" was made. So, they could not have expected a "dancing Sun" that everyone saw "falling" on earth.
On the contrary - I think they were hallucinating and what they saw wasn't real, but a function of hyped anticipation.
It is very likely that hundreds believed they "saw" the risen Jesus, but it is also very likely that what they saw was not the risen Jesus.
You are dodging the point kosta - was the tomb empty or not. If it was empty, then the witness is true. If the tomb wasn't empty - they why did two different groups of people at two different times (the women at day break and the apostles later) both report an empty tomb. If the tomb still held the body of Jesus - why didn't the high priests present the body and quash the heritics? Why instead did the priests concoct an alternative explanation for the empty tomb? The functional key point - he remembered the rifle pointed at him - the hat is peripheral. Again kosta, your unreliable witness theory does not explain those very essential and reinforcing accounts.
Sure, the appearance is there, but it is not what they thought it was. In other words, the interpretation of the event is not reliable.
Come on kosta - you are trying obfuscation and misdirection. Again, show where it negates the simple yes or no - empty or not - kosta.
The rifle is pointed, David believed at him, but you don;t know who the solider held in his sights; it could have been someone immediately behind David.
And that perception was recalled correctly wasn't it kosta. A far more traumatic experience than the type of hat he was wearing. Who the soldier was ACTUALLY pointing at is not part of the equation. The photo reinforces that the rifle was pointed at him.
In other words, the interpretation of the event is not reliable.
sorry kosta, you are equivocating here. the rifle was pointed at him, confirmed by the photo, the soldier was there, the rifle was there and the photo confirms the fundamental event.
How so? Because it was written in 'memoirs' collected decades later, and subsequently 'doctored' by various scribes to fit the doctrine?
come on kosta - even liberal bible scholars recognize that the accounts were written very early on and during the period when witnesses both friendly and hostile existed to contest any doctoring. The fundamental facts surrounding the resurrection account are not embellished as later non-scriptureal accounts clearly have been. Paul's discussion in 1 Corinthians regarding the resurrection has components closely linked to Marks gospel and is not embellished either, nor is there evidence of 'doctoring' kosta.
You are willing to assume a great deal in order to convince yourself of that, imo.
Not having to assume as much as you think. When compared to your unreliable witness theory and now your unreliable/altered scripture theory, the broad number of evidences they epically fail to counter only reinforce my beliefs kosta. You assume a great deal in the negative.
The rifle is pointed, David believed at him, but you don;t know who the solider held in his sights; it could have been someone immediately behind David.
Doesn't matter kosta - that is an interpretation and even the phrase 'at him' are more than adaquate to know that the rifle was pointed enough in his direction to remember the situation. The solder wasn't pointing a rose at him kosta. the soldier was there, the rifle was there.
The same thing with the tomb. The tomb was empty. How it dog to be that way no one knows for sure. We can identify the suspects who might have a motive.
Well that is an interesting admission on your part kosta. Why didn't you identify the 'suspects'?
The disciples are not likely - as demonstrated before they were cowering in fear of their lives and the last thing they wanted to do was to mix it up with roman soldiers.
The Jewish leaders - perhaps, yet they are silent on where Jesus' body was moved to - as shown before - they could have destroyed the heretics by producing a body.
Who else kosta?
His mind created a an image which, despite facts to the contrary, persists. That's what makes it pertinent.
His memory was accurate to the soldier and the rifle pointed in his direction - the probable cause for the military review. The hat is incidential and not pertinent to the event - it was documented in a photo.
You apparently want to negate the women and apostles who saw the empty tomb (to the exclusion of hostile testimony that supports their claim). You want to negate the two followers walking to Emmaus, who doubted the word of the women and disciples - yet saw Jesus. Or the disciples later feeding Jesus food, touching him and realizing he was physical - not an apparition.
Come on kosta, unreliability of eyewitness testimony. Different people, different places, different mental preparations of the observers. Yet there is a commonality in their witness - the tomb was empty, they hadn't removed it, they weren't expecting a resurrection.
those components are absent from the Tereshchuk example.
those components are definitely at contrast with fatima, where the event was hyped prior to the 'event' and the 'belief' established BEFORE the event.
An empty tomb is just that, a bodiless tomb. How it got to be empty is anyone's guess. The empty tomb proves nothing. Paul says it was "according to the scriptures". They would have expected it then. The guards could have been paid off, intoxicated, swooned, etc., and the body removed and reburied buy one or two disciples; the rest may have not known anything.
That doesn't matter on this point kosta - people came expecting to see SOMETHING - power of suggestion and hyperdevotion took the rest of the way.
Again compare to the resurrection
Followers were NOT anticipating anything resembling the resurrection.
The tomb was empty - that even you agree to is factual. Physical evidence -fatima has no physical evidence.
Post resurrection appearances were coherent, unexpected, unique and not due to hyped hysteria.
You said there was an explanation kosta - the usual suspects, now you have no clue. The body of Jesus was placed in the tomb. That tomb was sealed and guarded by soldiers. That tomb then was found empty - and this proves nothing kosta? The jewish leaders realized the meaning of the empty tomb.
Paul says it was "according to the scriptures". They would have expected it then.
Read the gospel accounts again kosta - though Jesus told them, they were plenty dense and didn't understand the meaning of the OT prophetical passages, now seen in the light of the post resurrection. Remember kosta - Paul made it very clear that if the resurrection never occurred, then the faith was in vain and they are preaching a lie.
The guards could have been paid off, intoxicated, swooned, etc.,
Solders were under the threat of death if they did any of these things while on duty. Why did they have to go to the priests for cover and protection?
and the body removed and reburied buy one or two disciples; the rest may have not known anything.
That is a leap that Evil Kinevel would have avoided kosta. Which of the remaining 11 had the courage to pull this off and how did they keep it secret. And that still doesn't account for the unexpected visitation of Jesus later on. Your occams razor kosta - your account is not believable in light of the other points that it doesn't even come close to addressing.
BTW kosta - spare us the Jesus 'swoon' theory - that is been so repudiated that it beneath your intelligence to postulate.
You’re welcome!
In the past decade, 80% of the population growth of the United States was contributed by minorities, mostly Hispanic and non-whilte, in other words groups that traditionally vote democratic. In another decade those born in the last decade will be either reaching or approaching the voting age. This is reality.
Today, the GOP is about as divided as it gets. It also lacks nay real charismatic leader who would be acceptable to the majority not only of the GOP but also of the absolutely essential undecided, but conservative-leaning voters and conservative Democrats. If the GOP is going to be defined by the 16% minority that supports Scarah Palin and the Tea Party, or even the larger number who now favor Romney (who is no less scary) we might as well kiss the next elections good bye and just hand 0bama four more horrible years.
The last thing the GOP needs at this point is to alienate the undecided voters (who are predominantly opposed to Palin and her style), remembering that the undecided voters tip the election results and not the party base. The last few elections were too close for comfort (Bush beat Al Bore [no, I it's not a type!] by a few hundred votes in Florida!).
The mid-terms this time were good for the GOP, but the people who were voted in are not in-your-face caribou hunters. I hope we tame our passions and look for the best talented, least compromised, candidate who can not only unite the party base but attract Conservative Democrats and, most of, your conservative African American women and other conservative leaning undecided voters without compromising conservative values.
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.