Posted on 02/21/2023 10:50:12 AM PST by spirited irish
Karl Popper (1902-1994) was a British philosopher and professor at the London School of Economics. Because he is regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century, what Popper had to say about Darwinism is of utmost importance to the desperate cultural struggle fought between creationists and methodological and ontological naturalists. This is because the America of the Founding generation is firmly grounded in the Genesis account of creation, Old and New Testament morality and Christian theism, yet the original meaning and intent of U.S. law — as now controlled and defined by anti-creation naturalism — has been radically changed so that it now reflects the doctrinal decrees of imperialist atheist evolutionary naturalism.
(Excerpt) Read more at patriotandliberty.com ...
ping
I used to be one of them a long time ago. I got better.
You would be living in Austin. TX.
So very glad to hear it!
To those who say, ‘there is no God’ I would ask, “What made the Big Bang go BANG?”
They would answer ... “nothing”
Nope.
Popper has fallen out of fashion, because if one accepts Popper’s arguments, then one cannot argue for strict materialism, or at least, one cannot argue for both strict materialism and argue that science is a reliable means of discovering truth.
“What made the Big Bang go BANG?”
Probably the same thing that put the “bop” in the “bop she bop she bop”.
What a dismissive name to give the Almighty Creator!
...But at least they would have a name for Him.
This is a statement that the only reliable knowledge is received knowledge, because everything else is a product of our imagination/mind and hence is spiritualism.
How do we know the Genesis account is more correct than the other religious texts/myths?
We can't rely on reason to say so - reason is just a product of our imagination and hence unreliable.
What text tells us how to choose between all the competing accounts?
“No God!”???
.
Postal.
Yet the preference of Popper as irrelevant is an act of mind and will the same as embrace of strict materialism is an act of mind and will just as rejection of the Christian God is an act of mind and will.
The man who chooses materialism does not choose it in order to reduce himself to a fleshy robot but rather so he or she can be free to do as he desires and also look down on other people as fleshy robots.
Consider Daniel Dennett’s statement below. It takes the thinking mind and will of a human standing outside of strict materialism to teach others that they are soulless, mindless, non will-bearing, robots:
"We are descended from robots, and composed of robots..." --Daniel C. Dennett, Kinds of Minds
Thx!
“The man who chooses materialism does not choose it in order to reduce himself to a fleshy robot but rather so he or she can be free to do as he desires and also look down on other people as fleshy robots.”
I agree, but they won’t admit that to others, and possibly not even to themselves. So it is always, or almost always, an intellectually dishonest position.
And it’s fruitless to engage in conventional argument with someone who is so intellectually dishonest, except that nowadays such people seem to make up the majority, or at least the most vocal group of those who even care to think about these matters. So if you don’t engage them, then they win. It’s very easy to pop their bubble, but since they don’t argue honestly, it doesn’t seem to faze them, so I’m afraid it’s a mostly futile exercise.
First of all the idea that the Christian and Jewish Bibles commits one to Young Earth Creationism is both incorrect and quite modern. It has its roots not so much in the Bible but in a vision by a leader of the Seventh Day Adventists church and then a couple reactionaries to Evolutionary science (The Origins of Young Earth Creationism (25 minute video))
Secondly putting Evolution aside, there is overwhelming physical evidence that suggests the universe is much much older than a few thousand years.
On the other hand one need not accept blind Naturalistic Evolution unless one is a Naturalist. Just because the universe is old does not mean there was not some divine guidance.
Moreover even if we accept that Naturalistic evolution is plausible (I am not at all sure it is, but as far as I know I could be wrong so maybe it is) Naturalism is still not plausible as there is overwhelming evidence that Nature is an incomplete system lacking an explanation for its own existence.
The debate between Young Earth Creationists and Naturalists is a debate between two sides that are almost certainly both wrong.
Agreed. One other element that must be considered: the masses of people who run after and eat up the deceptions. While some are taken in, others do so because they see unfettered license and power for themselves.
I am a biologists who believed in evolution, but I don’t want to live in a society that discards the inherited wisdom of our Christen and Jewish ancestors. I read the Bible as a teenager and was impressed in how brilliant the ancient Jews and Christians were in designing a lasting, fair, workable and livable society.
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.