It's God or Darwin

National Review Online ^ | 12/21/'05 | David Klinghoffer

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Let me also suggest that if "older morality withers" in the light of a mechanistic universe, that there is no morality that can take its place, since there will be no basis for any morality beyond what individuals or localities happen to choose to enforce for whatever peculiar reasons that drive them at that place and time."

It's very sad that so many people can think of no rational, objective standard to live there lives.

Merry Christmas!

[hosepipe]

[post in #112->> I didn't forget the Constitution, nor did Dennett. It is individual rights he is defending. ]

I say again.. what rights is he defending?...

Get snide with the snidable..

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" I say again.. what rights is he defending?..."

The right not to have someone else's religion forced on you.

If you want to know more about what he said, read his book.

[xzins]

Precisely the point.

Each person will think of his own "rational, objective standard."

Or as the bible says, "Each did what was right in his own eyes."

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Each person will think of his own "rational, objective standard."

Then it won't be objective. Get a dictionary.

[goldstategop]

You can take the premise of science to its ultimate conclusion and say that definitely there's no God. Well that's false. Materialist determinism was all the rage in the 19th Century since it was assumed science was a closed system, all the important questions had been answered and Nature was an elegant mode of self-contained perfection. Since that time, Kurt Godel showed there is no complete body of knowledge and Werner Heisenberg later demonstrated there are no certain outcomes. Both of those propositions demolished the view of science as a closed system and it doesn't lend itself to an exclusively materialist view of reality. As for Darwin's theory, a number of leading scientists who take it in the former sense of the expression I just mentioned, are atheists or strong agnostics. Then again their views about scientific investigation hasn't changed much in two centuries. That's to their credit if one believes science and religion are incompatible in the sense one or the other view of the great questions of life are incompatible, especially if one reads the Origin to postulate Darwin meant to address epistemological as well as methodological issues. In other words, Darwin had a view about the universe that pronounces on faith and not just on how to investigate natural processes. The only problem is Darwin doesn't say at any point in his work you can draw a wider inference on what true reality looks like as opposed to what can be observed in Nature. So what we really have here is the bias of the true Darwinian believers on display rather than just confining Darwin to the empirical limits of science. You can pass those limits as some of Darwin's advocates are wont to do but only in their minds can we say we can have either science or faith. For the rest of us, the alleged incompatibility is not so evident.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

[hosepipe]

[ The right not to have someone else's religion forced on you. ]

The comment is a mystery to me.. How are christians forcing anybody to do what?.. even if they have a "right" to not be forced to do it.. whatever the it is..

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"The comment is a mystery to me.. How are christians forcing anybody to do what?.. even if they have a "right" to not be forced to do it.. whatever the it is.."

You don't think we have a right not to have religion forced on us? How odd.

[marron]

In Saudi Arabia, the newspapers print the names and crimes of everyone executed in the country on a given day. Most are for murder or drug trafficking, but every week at least someone is executed for blasphemy.

Blasphemy, there, means that you deny that Mohammed was the last prophet. This is a crime limited to people who have previously believed or affirmed Mohammed as prophet. Non-muslims are exempt, because they have never believed in him, and so can't be guilty of blasphemy by their rules.

And you can avoid execution at any time by re-affirming your belief in Mohammed. So what former muslim, faced with the swordsman, would still refuse to accept Mohammed, even if only to save his life?

Only a Christian convert, I believe. I am convinced that the people executed for blasphemy there, and it happens every week, are Christian converts.

[hosepipe]

[ since there will be no basis for any morality beyond what individuals or localities happen to choose to enforce for whatever peculiar reasons that drive them at that place and time. ]

Government and religion is all about enforcing morality..

Jesus however enforces nothing.. He changes the individual not his circumstances.. Morality then comes from the inside out, not from the outside in..

Government and some Most All religion force morality from the outside in.. like paint.. or caulking.. or even stucco..

[marron]

Jesus however enforces nothing.. He changes the individual not his circumstances.. Morality then comes from the inside out, not from the outside in...

[hosepipe]

[ Only a Christian convert, I believe. I am convinced that the people executed for blasphemy there, and it happens every week, are Christian converts. ]

Yes true marytrs, unless its an accusation purely for convience.. as most all are.. Islamic governments are just gangs.. in every case.. Which make them ripe for democracy.. since democracy is Mob rule.. Muslims have been doing Mob rule for 1426 years.. and have many "hit" laws.. Laws that make the "hit" legal..

[hosepipe]

[ You don't think we have a right not to have religion forced on us? How odd. ]

Same question.. Forced HOW?.. What "right" is being denied.?.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Same question.. Forced HOW?.. What "right" is being denied.?."

When people try to force religion into science classrooms. When people try to force others to obey their morality when the action in no way infringes on anybody else's rights to life, liberty, or property. That's one reason we still have blue laws.

For the most part, the Constitution has been a check on these impulses. I have no doubts though that if a Pat Robertson or a Jerry Falwell had real political power, they would not hesitate to establish a theocracy here.

[hosepipe]

[ For the most part, the Constitution has been a check on these impulses. I have no doubts though that if a Pat Robertson or a Jerry Falwell had real political power, they would not hesitate to establish a theocracy here. ]

I see... so your projections effect your reality..
I figured that, very open of you to admit it though..

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" I see... so your projections effect your reality.."

Nope.


Merry Christmas!

[betty boop]

Jesus however enforces nothing.. He changes the individual not his circumstances.. Morality then comes from the inside out, not from the outside in..

This is the crucial point, the root of Christian faith. CG apparently sees morality as a bunch of pesky "rules" being imposed on one from outside. Christianity, in stark contrast, sees morality as flowing from the order of the person; i.e., from the inside out, as you so astutely note hosepipe. When we allow ourselves to be drawn by God via the Holy Spirit, we find our hearts have been changed, and we "turn around" our lives, and are born again. This is rebirth in the Spirit, the renewal of our communion with God destroyed by Adam's fall. We order our being according to God's Truth -- voluntarily for the love of Him -- which He reveals both in the holy scriptures and in the natural world. This, then, is the true source of morality.

Morality is thus a disposition of personal character, not servile surrender to "whimsical" rules imposed by powerful mortals, theist or atheist.

Jesus draws us; He does not "order us to do this or not to do that." He came -- as you've astutely noted elsewhere hosepipe -- not to establish a religion, but to establish a thriving human family. Unlike the case of the human family (into which we are simply born and have no say about who our relatives are), this is a "family" that one is free to join or not join, as the case may be. There is no coercion, nor could there ever be.

For CG to imagine that Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell coming to power would mean the forced establishment of a theocracy is simply ridiculous. The love of God cannot be coerced; the desire to live in communion with him cannot be coerced. Does CG think these men are so abysmally stupid that they don't know that? Christians know that the imposition of religion is simply an exercise in futility.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"CG apparently sees morality as a bunch of pesky "rules" being imposed on one from outside."

Again, you assume too much. Par for the course.

" Jesus draws us; He does not "order us to do this or not to do that."

And if we disobey his orders, we burn in Hell. Nope, not orders at all....

"Unlike the case of the human family (into which we are simply born and have no say about who our relatives are), this is a "family" that one is free to join or not join, as the case may be. There is no coercion, nor could there ever be."

No coersion other than *Join or burn in Hell!*.

"For CG to imagine that Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell coming to power would mean the forced establishment of a theocracy is simply ridiculous."

Only if you ignore their words.

"The love of God cannot be coerced; the desire to live in communion with him cannot be coerced."

People can be coerced to follow the rules of someone else's religious faith. That's a fact.

" Does CG think these men are so abysmally stupid that they don't know that? "

Yes, I do. Theocracy has been attempted before; it's a fact in the Middle East. Are you so blind to think it couldn't be attempted here?

"Christians know that the imposition of religion is simply an exercise in futility."

Not all Christians know this.

[JCEccles]

Judge Jones is a raving humanist bigot. Last week's decision was just one more stinking plank in the rotting edifice that is the humanist manifesto.

At the height of Stalin's and Mao's reigns of terror, the definition of science over one fourth of the world's landmass was a political matter. Judge Jones has taken over the throne of humanist bigotry vacated when the kommissars of science were deposed and sent into exile when the stupidity and hubris of their ex cathedra nonsense was insufficient to keep the castle of atheist arrogance standing on its foundations.

Jones should be awarded a medal of dishonor for gross stupidity and arrogance.

[marron]

Christianity, in stark contrast, sees morality as flowing from the order of the person; i.e., from the inside out... When we allow ourselves to be drawn by God via the Holy Spirit, we find our hearts have been changed, and we "turn around" our lives, and are born again...

Morality is thus a disposition of personal character, not servile surrender to "whimsical" rules imposed by powerful mortals, theist or atheist...

Jesus draws us; He does not "order us to do this or not to do that"... There is no coercion, nor could there ever be... The love of God cannot be coerced; the desire to live in communion with him cannot be coerced... Christians know that the imposition of religion is simply an exercise in futility.

I just thought this all deserved to be repeated.