Posted on 09/20/2013 4:29:03 AM PDT by spirited irish
Against whom do you propose to “defend” Dawkins’ right to express opinions? Dawkins’ right to express opinions has not been an issue with me. Again, we witness smoke making (great billowing clouds). This old naval tactic is very popular with politicians whenever they encounter any topic with which they lack the stomach to deal, which is as sure an indication as can be found, that issue is entirely about political domination, and has nothing to do with protecting the precious sanctity of scientific purity.
“For the obvious reason that we don't get a lot of "Obamatrons" posting here”
Oh, so you do agree with me that most posts pretending to represent Science, or to defend Darwinism, are pointless and in violation of Science principles.
“When a scientist speaks of his/her religious or metaphysical opinions, those are not, by definition, "scientific".”
The crux of the matter, and one I’ve held from the beginning, and the point you’ve attempted right along to obfuscate with much smoke making . . . great billowing clouds.
Now you say that you don’t have occasion, poor fellow, to deliver your opinion to Dawkins and his many acolytes, because you just don’t run in their circle, and post only in FR. There’s nothing to prevent you from correcting his fans on FR who assail his FR critics by directing everyone’s attention to the myriad Science heresies he commits when he directs his poisonous tongue to Judeo-Christians. So why don’t you? The strongest sentiments against Dawkins &co you’ve delivered, of which I am aware, have been here in this present thread in your agreement with me.
“Aquinas never addressed the question: what if science appears to tell us something in conflict with the Bible?”
What?! The quotes I provided from T. Aquinas, Of God and His Creatures, Book I, Chap. 7, address that very point. That should be obvious, but I suppose the philosophy and religion of Aquinas cannot be read and understood if it is treated as though it is a lab report form a peer-reviewed scientific paper.
“Science has nothing whatever to do with certitude”
You don’t need to convince me. Indeed, you do admit (as you should) that many are paid by the Regime and that we should not be surprised at their politics. And, of course, I am not surprised; merely disgusted at how easily they prostitute themselves, and how lightly they regard liberty and the salvation of their souls.
My reference to Marx stems, of course, from the fact that he was a historian, economist, sociologist, journalist, and philosopher (nonsense - he was the Mid-Eighteenth Century version of a community agitator), and was joyful to declare that the Theory of Evolution proved with scientific “certainty” that God never existed. And that is yet today the stance assumed by all Marxist acolytes (both public and closet). To all Socialist devotees and 0bamatrons (who seldom, if ever, even have a scientific or philosophic thought in their empty heads), the nonexistence of God is the one certain thing in an otherwise uncertain Universe; and it is Science that proves it. If this all this sounds rather psychotic, then understand it is nothing more than a view into the chaos of a Liberal’s mind, which is something akin to a view into an used baby diaper.
Since you seem to understand that my main objection is to Scientists of an Atheist persuasion, primarily if not entirely, who misrepresent themselves as speaking authoritatively, not personally, that Science proves God does not exist, why do you tell me all these things you apparently know I know?
“glaring Scientific heresy" refers to what, exactly?”
Heavens to Murgatroid! Of what have I been speaking almost incessantly on this thread if not the dishonesty of Scientists (and others) who present their opinions authoritatively, as though they are making factual statements about Science?
“so far as I can tell, that is not true of anything to do with evolution theory.”
Really?! From Marx to the present, it has ben the mantra of all Liberals/Socialists/0bamatrons, that it is Science generally, and The Theory of Evolution particularly, which “proves” that Capitalism and the Judeo-Christian God are both dead.
discern • verb • perceive or recognize (something)
Words mean things. Words are meant for communication. But, not for some. You cite “assumptions” as your reason to pass. Not wishing to further deal with an old naval tactic, I think I’ll pass too. Thanks.
The theory of evolution by natural selection: Natural selection is the gradual natural process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of the effect of inherited traits on the differential reproductive success of organisms interacting with their environment.
For a given environment, assuming that the living population already exists and that there is a variation of genetic traits in that population, those traits that enable making more babies than the other traits become more common. Split the population in two and put the the two groups in different environments, you'll end up with two different sets of traits being selected for.
This is untestable?
"Soul: “The spiritual, rational and immortal substance in man, which distinguishes him from brutes; that part of man which enables him to think and reason.”"
Have you even looked at human history? Did you even read the Bible instead parroting what your pastor said? The romanticism of the early nineteenth century had sown the seeds of the West's destruction. It was the progenitor of progressivism. Your average low-information voter is a very base and instinctual being, the typical human.
"In conclusion, all three theories originated in the mind (spirit). As mind is a power of soul, then Darwinism, empiricism, and observationalism are spiritual."
The brain's function is determined by genetics, and since the mind is what the brain does, your instincts and personality (largely genetically determined) are based on inherited traits. Note that human population groups are in different environments. If you actually understand this and natural selection, the implications are going to be very, very, politically incorrect.
That would be good idea.
From Fyodor Dostoevsky and GK Chesterton to Thomas Molnar, Eric Voegelin and many other incisive, penetrating analytical thinkers, all have concluded that underlying natural science (all that exists is the natural or material dimension)and evolution are two spiritual pathologies:
1. the perennial utopian heresy (i.e., Nimrod’s Tower, communism, socialism and other new world order conceptions)
2. Gnostic dualism
Gnostic dualism holds that the material body into which divine sparks fell and are thus entombed are evil because all matter is evil. In the modern version, man is not fallen, he is not a sinner because his evil genes made him do it-—lie, cheat, swindle, murder, etc.
Gnostic dualism is a continuation of ancient pagan teachings along the same lines but with one major difference...it incorporates a paganized Bible and Christian theism. Thus it teaches that Yahweh is the evil demiurge responsible for creating matter while Lucifer is the first free thinker, the liberator of mankind, the seething energies of evolution, the angel of evolution and the Being of Light encountered by haters of Yahweh and other unbelievers during NDE’s and other OBE’s who lovingly tells them that heaven is for everyone.
Through evolution matter becomes progressively pure and perfect until the terminal point is reached: the spiritualized, divinized whole substance: Omega Point(heaven)
For the Gnostic who has willed his own emancipation because he is not fallen but rather possesses a particle of the divine, evolution is a system of self-perfecting.
Your refutation of my previous post exemplifies the peculiar dichotomy produced by Gnostic thinkers. The first three paragraphs are the work of an emancipated mind, free spirit, pure spirit, Transhumanist essence or pattern trapped within evil matter, or meat machine and it’s grey matter as expressed in the 4th and final paragraph:
“The brain’s function is determined by genetics, and since the mind is what the brain does, your instincts and personality (largely genetically determined) are based on inherited traits”
Well of course he recanted. After thinking over what he had admitted he no doubt realized that if what he said was true then his own thinking was the product of (mystical) genes and (mystical) chemicals. So what to do? Recant with the hope that no one would notice his blunder.
Darwinian materialists are today’s Kings with no clothes, in their case-—no minds. As soon as they open their mouths to officiously pontificate upon this or that they immediately self-refute everything they say. Worse, they bring this shame upon themselves publicly, just as the King did.
The theory of evolution by natural selection: Natural selection is the gradual natural process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of the effect of inherited traits on the differential reproductive success of organisms interacting with their environment.
For a given environment, assuming that the living population already exists and that there is a variation of genetic traits in that population, those traits that enable making more babies than the other traits become more common. Split the population in two and put the the two groups in different environments, you'll end up with two different sets of traits being selected for.
What does the above do with "pure perfection"? That is completely irrelevant. Do I detect the Hamster in these replies?
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear sister in Christ!
Is that why you so consistently pollute all the conventions of meaning and communication? To get me, and people like me, to shut up?
Isn’t going to happen . . . pilgrim
I take it that your thesis is that “Gnostic dualism” denies free will (that is, denies personal responsibility for one’s actions), in agreement with Liberals, Moslems, and, perhaps, others. Thus the Liberals’ gentle treatment of those who “lie, cheat, swindle, murder, etc.”, because they, poor dears, just can’t help themselves (but, of course, not Conservatives and Christians, who apparently do, in this one instance, enjoy free will in their decisions about their religion and their personal philosophy).
I think you are correct.
Whatever world you live in where someone asking you for more information is "trying to get you to shut up", I'm glad it's there and not here.
Your words, "smoke making great billowing clouds" rather precisely describes your own postings here, which I have been carefully trying to cut through to find some core of argument worthy of response.
You may appreciate how difficult that is... ;-).
YHAOS: "Oh, so you do agree with me that most posts pretending to represent Science, or to defend Darwinism, are pointless and in violation of Science principles."
And again we see the "great billowing clouds" this time hoping to blow their way between my very words!
So let us begin with the fact that nobody I've ever seen on Free Republic defends Dawkins' religious opinions, except in his right to express them.
YHAOS: "The crux of the matter, and one I’ve held from the beginning, and the point you’ve attempted right along to obfuscate with much smoke making . . . great billowing clouds."
Sorry, but the "great billowing clouds" were your hors d'oeuvres, your entree and now, it appears, also your dessert.
Really, is there nothing else on your menu?
Nothing I've said is difficult to grasp, except for someone determined to misunderstand.
My point boils down to one simple idea: the word "science" refers only to: natural explanations for natural processes.
As soon as YHAOS or Dawkins or anybody else starts talking religion, it's not "science" any more.
YHAOS: "There’s nothing to prevent you from correcting his fans on FR who assail his FR critics by directing everyone’s attention to the myriad Science heresies he commits when he directs his poisonous tongue to Judeo-Christians.
So why don’t you?
In fact, there are no such "fans" posting of Free Republic, except in the projections of your own rather fertile imagination.
The most anybody here will do is just what I've done: defend Dawkins' right to express opinions, scientific or otherwise.
YHAOS: "The quotes I provided from T. Aquinas, Of God and His Creatures, Book I, Chap. 7, address that very point."
Sorry, but no.
Anything I've read from Aquinas assumes or asserts that religion and natural-science must be in harmony.
So far as I know, Aquinas never addressed questions later raised by, for example, Galileo Galilee -- when findings or theories of science seem to contradict scripture.
YHAOS: "You don’t need to convince me."
Then our areas of agreement may be larger than some of those "great billowing clouds" might suggest... ;-)
By the way I like your whole paragraph on Marx, expecially this:
Of course, "science" by definition cannot "prove" any such thing.
YHAOS: "Since you seem to understand that my main objection is to Scientists of an Atheist persuasion, primarily if not entirely, who misrepresent themselves as speaking authoritatively, not personally, that Science proves God does not exist, why do you tell me all these things you apparently know I know?"
Go back and reread my posts #41, #55 and #72 to see what they actually refer to.
YHAOS: "From Marx to the present, it has ben the mantra of all Liberals/Socialists/0bamatrons, that it is Science generally, and The Theory of Evolution particularly, which “proves” that Capitalism and the Judeo-Christian God are both dead."
Doubtless some do, but I've never seen that argument made by posters on Free Republic.
So how many times have I instructed you on the correct answer here: it's not "metaphysical nihilism", it's "methodological naturalism" that defines what is, and what is not "science"
If you cannot get that distinction straight in your mind, FRiend, you will be forever confused, and ranting insanely.
So work on it, until you grasp the idea.
Spiritual nihilism was not required, and was never practiced by many of our greatest scientists.
spirited irish: "Though Popper esteemed evolutionary theory and natural selection, he also honestly admitted that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but rather a metaphysical research program.
By this he means that not only is Darwinism of the spiritual dimension, but so are its’ two most important foundations, classical empiricism and the observationalist philosophy of science that grew out of it."
Then Popper is simply ranting insanely against science in general, from a religious/philosophical perspective -- all of which may, or may not, be entirely correct, but is irrelevant to what science actually is, and does: natural explanations for natural processes.
If Popper, or "spirited irish" say that science is inadequate to answer many philosophical questions, that's all well and good, but it's a little like criticizing a cat because it's not a dog.
Well, duh, no real cat wants to be a dog.
So, if you say it's not a dog, you are actually complimenting the cat, and so with science: to say that science can't answer religious-philosophical questions is simply to affirm that science is still doing what it was originally intended to do: provide natural explanations for natural processes.
spirited irish: "In conclusion, all three theories originated in the mind (spirit).
As mind is a power of soul, then Darwinism, empiricism, and observationalism are spiritual.
In short, all three theories are frauds.
They claim to be what they are not in order to obtain an advantage over the Genesis account of creation by imposition of immoral means.
Sorry, but that's just nonsense.
All of science (i.e., "Darwinism", "empiricism", and "observationsalism") is based on the assumption of "methodological naturalism".
Science itself makes no assumptions regarding philosophical, or ontological, or metaphysical naturalism.
All of that is stripped away from science and remains in the realms of philosophy or religious beliefs.
So, if you wish to assert that Genesis is a more accurate description of Creation than various scientific hypotheses (i.e., "Big Bang", evolution, etc.), that is your perfect right, provided you don't pretend your beliefs are somehow "scientific", since they are not.
Oh really, dear R7 Rocket?
This is a most sweeping claim. So I just need to ask you a question: How do you know that? On what evidence do you depend to come up with this conclusion?
Please give me a thorough briefing on this matter. for I find your statement totally perplexing.
What you are saying is that mind is merely an epiphenomenon of physico/chemical processes in the brain. This claim is so sweeping, that I really do demand to see your evidence for it. For epiphenomena are thought to have zero causative effect on anything. Yet it seems quite evident to me that minds are capable of changing the ways that human beings decide and act. And I am to suppose to think that this is some sort of fluke of brain chemistry???
And while you're thinking that over (I hope), here are some other questions I have for you:
Do you believe that the evolution of human beings is essentially random? That the only power in nature that can establish anything new in biology is environmental pulls of Nature itself ("natural selection"), acting on accidents of mutation? (Which are usually fatal to organisms afflicted by such mutations?)
Another question: Do you believe there is any such thing as human nature itself? That is, that human nature might somehow be a "given" in Nature, and not a product of some (fictitious) evolutionary process?
If you check the history of the human race, you will find that, over thousands and thousands of millennia (judging from the historical record), that human beings qua human beings do not change much over time. I find it positively striking that whether you are consulting records from ancient Egypt, through classical philosophy, through Judeo-Christian writings, or just reading the 14th-century writer Boccaccio (See: The Decameron), the same human problems and concerns always emerge as the same over all historical time. The human "picture" seems never to change.
So, how does Darwin's theory help us to understand ourselves? Answer: It doesn't. It just changes the subject entirely. It says there is no human "nature." Man is "unfinished business," just leave it up to Nature to "complete" him. The next thing you know, the way things are going, is that Man will "evolve" into a machine, or "devolve" into a sub-human, vicious predator. And as long as we can blame his "brain" for doing all this, then Man is not responsible for what happens to him or to his species or the very world around him, which he profoundly influences by his thoughts ands actions. "Nature did it!!!"
If man suffers from this disordered understanding, if his societies deconstruct into chaos and strife as a result, then it's okay: "Nature did it," not man.
Man is responsible for nothing if he is but the pawn of the activities of his bodily chemistry.
And oh, by the way, where did DNA come from? Is that an "accident" too, just another evolutionary process?
Looking forward to hearing from you. Thank you for writing!
Your thoughts????
God bless!
The “Who me?” defense. The final resort of definitions shape shifters.
It’s all there in the thread. Have whatever kind of tantrum you want about it. I’ve got work to do.
Oh wow, I didn’t even know you were ‘having a tantrum’! Where’s the attendant when you need a program to follow the fizzles? LOL
I would like for someone to explain to me the allegorical meaning of “In the beginning” or “Thou shalt not steal.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4us_zaIW7mE
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.