[ Perhaps you think I’m straining on a gnat here, dear tacticalogic. But what I understand myself to be doing is searching for the logical basis of Darwin’s theory; and so far, I haven’t found it. ]
Dear Boopy;
I think I found the logical basis for Darwin’s theory..
It is his opinion...
It reminds me of the well known academic bromide, “I have my truth you have yours”..
Which obviously makes any truth an opinion..
Even at a young age when hearing this punch line I laughed..
I laughed at the poor challenged soul that drooled it..
2 + 2 is 4... any other answer is not the truth..
Charlie Darwin must not been good with his cyphers..
I think I might have found the logical basis for finding the flaws in his theory.......
Exactly so, dear brother in Christ!
If there is no Truth, then every man's opinion is just as good as any other man's: There is no universal criterion that can be invoked to discriminate between them as to their adequacy in making trustworthy descriptions of the world of men and of nature....
As Ivan Karamazov put it, "If there is no God, then everything is possible."
Or as Chesterton recognized, If one does not believe in God, that doesn't mean that one believes in nothing. It means that one can believe in anything.
But where does science itself find any purchase under such conditions? Its most basic assumption is that the world is intelligible, because in some way it reflects a truthful order — described by what philosophers call Natural Law.
Long before the advent of Christianity, great thinkers recognized that God — as Plato put it, the Unknown God Beyond the Cosmos — is not only pure Being, but Truth itself. Human beings are "participations" in both.
Some of the greatest thinkers in all of human history recognized — long before Christianity — that absent the idea of universal Truth (Logos) — always understood by mankind as being of divine origin — there is only doxa, or "opinion."
In situations involving disputed opinions, it is always the guy who commands the most "power" (personal and/or social) who wins the debate. If anybody needs an illustration of this, he need only review President Clinton's speech at the DNC last night.
Clinton is the finest example of a "sophist" available to our inspection these days. He seeks to win debates through the power of emotional appeals. It doesn't matter that his discourse is riddled with logical fallacies throughout. He persuades without any recourse to Truth or reason itself....
If God "dies" in human consciousness, Truth and reason die with Him.
But of course, man cannot "kill God," no matter how hard he tries.
Thank you so very much for writing, dear brother in Christ!