Posted on 11/17/2003 6:02:20 AM PST by Tribune7
The idea that he is a devotee of reason seeing through the outdated superstitions of other, lesser beings is the foremost conceit of the proud atheist. This heady notion was first made popular by French intellectuals such as Voltaire and Diderot, who ushered in the so-called Age of Enlightenment.
That they also paved the way for the murderous excesses of the French Revolution and many other massacres in the name of human progress is usually considered an unfortunate coincidence by their philosophical descendants.
The atheist is without God but not without faith, for today he puts his trust in the investigative method known as science, whether he understands it or not. Since there are very few minds capable of grasping higher-level physics, let alone following their implications, and since specialization means that it is nearly impossible to keep up with the latest developments in the more esoteric fields, the atheist stands with utter confidence on an intellectual foundation comprised of things of which he knows nothing.
In fairness, he cannot be faulted for this, except when he fails to admit that he is not actually operating on reason in this regard, but is instead exercising a faith that is every bit as blind and childlike as that of the most unthinking Bible-thumping fundamentalist. Still, this is not irrational, it is only ignorance and a failure of perception.
The irrationality of the atheist can primarily be seen in his actions – and it is here that the cowardice of his intellectual convictions is also exposed. Whereas Christians and the faithful of other religions have good reason for attempting to live by the Golden Rule – they are commanded to do so – the atheist does not.
In fact, such ethics, as well as the morality that underlies them, are nothing more than man-made myth to the atheist. Nevertheless, he usually seeks to live by them when they are convenient, and there are even those, who, despite their faithlessness, do a better job of living by the tenets of religion than those who actually subscribe to them.
Still, even the most admirable of atheists is nothing more than a moral parasite, living his life based on borrowed ethics.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
As a technical nit, "organism" is an arbitrary distinction, a point selected along a gradient (like "sentient"). Such distinctions are dangerous since they can be moved arbitrarily to support or refute a particular argument (or pogrom, as the case may be) simply by changing the premised axioms to arrive at a particular definition.
Another, which has been discussed here by Freeper tortoise, who is an Artificial Intelligence expert, essentially asserts that Kolmogorov complexity/Solomonof induction is a better method to analyze the information content.
It would be more correct to say that Shannon information is a narrow subset of the more general Kolmogorov information. As a consequence, Shannon is not universally applicable, most notably to the case of dynamic systems. One can't make a good analysis of thermodynamics by application of Shannon information theory. On the other hand, post-Kolmogorov information theory (e.g. algorithmic information theory) is very capable of dealing with dynamic stochastic systems.
Now kids, play nice! Don't make me come back there... :-)
Why should they have wished to do so? The commandments are restrictions on men -- and pretty much all of them were instituted via statute in the colonies/states. The Constitution is a restriction on government.
Hi, Doc! I did not mean to suggest that the Framers would have been interested in lifting actual text from the 10C for explicit incorporation into the draft Constitution. The point is the 10C were written in their hearts, and on their psyche: These were the Framers' moral values, and they are perfectly suitable for a secular order, such that they had in mind to create.
I know you are aware that the Bill of Rights is designed as a restraint on the federal government, to prevent it from infringing on the God-given inalienable rights of the human person, religious liberty being one of them.
That's very true. But the Constitution itself (apart from the moral values of the Framers) is not a bible-based system of government. Other than the date at the end, there's no mention of religion, except to prevent religious tests for holding office. I don't think you can find any genuine biblical precedent for the kind of government the Constitution gives us. It's well-recognized as being unique.
You can search the Federalist Papers on line (as you know, they were editorials written by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, to explain the document clause by clause in order to persuade New York to ratify the Constitution), but you'll find not one mention of the words "bible," "scripture," or "Jesus." The word "Christian" appears once, in a reference to an historical period. "Lord" appears 5 times, but always in reference to aristocracy or the House of Lords. "God" appears 3 times, respectively refering to demi-gods, pagan gods, and nature's god. Nor does "ten commandments" appear.
There's no doubt about the Christian morality of the Founders and the Framers (most of them), but they intended to create a secular government -- something very different from what they were familiar with in Europe.
Thank you so very much for your always informative posts!
I certainly agree with you on algorithmic information theory and the overarching applicability of Kolmogorov.
But when it comes to communications, I have no problem with Shannon - and that (communications) appears to be the focus of its use in this context. Example: A general procedure for locating and analyzing protein-binding sequence motifs in nucleic acids
Nice, now Alamo-girl’s supporters are also pretending to be stupid in order to avoid addressing her mischaracterization. It can be a slippery slope to a life of dishonesty. Thank Alamo-girl for her part in your journey.
Agreed. More generally, a priori calculations of the probability of a process, that don't specify the mechanism of the process in gory detail, are basically impossible, and Yockey and Hoyle's attempt to do such calculations speaks volumes.
If her refusal to address it on any other terms is not obfuscation, please suggest an alternative explanation.
It's as if we are back in the nineteenth century listening to Speke and Burton debate the source of the Nile. You can't settle scientific questions by argument.
Yes, PH -- they were seeking to found a novo ordo seclorum -- a new secular order. There's no question about this. But I haven't disputed this point.
Where things get dicey is here we have a case of a secular order that is founded on the moral values of a revealed religion. There is also no question about that. The Framers weren't as "allergic" to religion as many of us are today. They just wanted to make sure that the federal government would not establish an official state church -- a common practice in Europe, where monarchs were typically styled "defenders of the faith."
The reason for that is, although the American culture at that time was deeply religious, there were many different confessions and sects. At that time, all were Christian ones -- with the exception of a Jewish community in Rhode Island, which was very glad to see the BoR when it came along.
Indeed, several of the sovereign states already had established churches; so they would never have ratified the Constitution if it weren't perfectly clear that the federal government it sought to establish was prohibited from establishing a church itself.
So instead of trying to "stamp out religion" in the new secular order, they were trying to establish religious liberty -- by accommodating already existing state practices. The idea was to keep the feds from competing with the states in what was essentially thought to be a state matter.
But many of the Framers made it clear that the fledgling United States of America would not prosper, let alone last, if the citizens of the several states were not willing to live under the moral law -- the moral law that was universally in effect in then-America, which ultimately united a people under a constitution and made them a nation.
And the fact of the matter is, that law was understood to be divine in origin, and of distinctly Judeo-Christian character.
Just for the fun of it, try to imagine what the United States would "look like" if it had been founded by a band of Confucians, or Buddhists. If you were to do that, maybe you'd see the point I'm trying to make.
To date, I have found only one plausible speculation for the rise of information content via abiogenesis - and that was by Rocha. His speculation requires a toggling back and forth between states (autonomous and catalytic).
If you have a competing speculation, please let us know!
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.