Falling Stars, Damnable Heresy, and the Spirit of Evolution

Renew America ^ | Sept. 19, 2013 | Linda Kimball

[BroJoeK]

FRiend, some posters on this thread, and many others, are hugely exercised over the idea that “godless” science doesn’t agree with their own understandings of the Bible.
Those include the thread’s originator, and their anti-science language is not tempered by any respect for their fellow FReepers.
Imho, these people need to be called out and made accountable for their lies and false accusations.

As for Creationism and Intelligent Design, it’s impossible to believe in God without agreeing that He did Plan, Design & Ceate the Universe and does manage its unfolding.
But those are not scientific observations or theories, and so science itself must replace the word “God” with such terms as “random chance (lucky for us)”.
So seems to me, about 90% of the air would deflate from the controversy, if that were clearly understood.
On the topic of “young earth”, I’d suggest that here is an applicagion for Origen’s second rule above.

[spirited irish]

Bro: the thread’s originator, and their anti-science language is not tempered by any respect for their fellow FReepers. Imho, these people need to be called out and made accountable for their lies and false accusations.

Spirited: There are emotionally-self-controlled higher order thinkers (i.e., Fyodor Dostoevsky, Dr. Thomas Molnar) whose minds penetrate ideas, concepts, etc. right down to the deepest level where source, meaning, veracity or lack of it, and consequence lie and then there are the vertical thinkers whose minds run along the top blind to all levels of meaning and consequence lying below.

The worst of this sort are intellectually impoverished and being not emotionally self-controlled, are most vulnerable to the temptation in our day to worship science and swallow toxic isms (i.e., Darwinism, methodological naturalism) “whole,” without ever questioning their veracity nor seeing their consequences until too late, if even then.

As emotions trump intellect, this sort inevitably resents and even hates anyone who exposes their intellectual impoverishment, thus like the irrational Red Queen, demand their heads be cut off:

“Imho, these people need to be called out and made accountable for their lies and false accusations.”

Bro in reaction to Nihilism and Satanic Inversion: America’s ‘New’ Reality of Non-Self and Madness:”

“....right away I notice the author’s effort to equate methodological naturalism (aka “science”) with philosophical and dialectical materialism (aka “atheistic communism”).I don’t agree that the two are the same, or that all scientists are necessarily atheistic communists.

Spirited: Whether you personally agree or not has no bearing, no effect at all upon the fact that methodological naturalism is a consistent philosophy of neo-pagan materialism applied to the seen (natural dimension) and the unseen (supernatural Holy God, soul/spirit, Heaven, hell, etc.)

Read on and discover the nature of the toxins you have swallowed whole:

“An age of science is necessarily an age of materialism,” declared Hugh Elliot early last century, “Ours is a scientific age, and it may be said with truth that we are all materialists now.” (Darwin Day in America, John G. West, xiv)

Julien de la Mettrie (1709-51), Paul Henri Thiery, and Baron D’Holbach (1723-89) all agreed that mind (soul/spirit)is the property of matter and man nothing but a machine. La Mettrie speculated that the rational life of machine-man is entirely determined by physical causes that run the gamut from raw meat, to climate, blood circulation, and gender. Genetic inheritance, posits la Mettrie, causes machine-man to think bad thoughts and commit crime.

This view casts parents, skin color, gender and even ‘thoughts’ into the role of “first cause” and would later manifest itself in the belief that State ‘experts,’ or Hillary’s “village” experts should have the ‘scientific’ control and the politically correct programming of the minds of children lest they think wrong thoughts and commit genetically-caused hate crime (i.e., homophobia, xenophobia)and worse, commit the blasphemy of being anti-scientific. (ibid, pp. 16-18)

Pierre Simon Laplace (1749-1827) viewed scientific materialism as not only the pursuit of God-like omniscience but of the Holy Grail itself-—power to create a New Man.

If an intelligence could grasp “at a given instant...all the forces by which nature is animated” proclaimed Laplace, it could devise a mathematical formula that would predict everything that would ever happen, and “nothing would be uncertain, and the future, like the past, would be open to its eyes.”

Scientists should reduce everything in the universe to mechanical laws that could be expressed in terms of mathematics, advised Laplace, for the promise of such knowledge was incredible power...even over life and mind itself. (ibid, p. 20)

Herbert Spencer, Fechner, Lotze, Wundt, and pantheist Ernst Haeckel, inventor of the scientism dictum-—ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny-—all agreed that life and mind are properties of matter. Haeckel moreover imagined ether to be the primitive life-making substance which, as was the case with the primitive fire of the Stoics, changed one part of itself into inert mass while the other part became the active evolutionary principle (spiritualized matter and energies working in and through it). Today, many scientists routinely resort to Haeckel’s postulate without ever inquiring into its mystical pantheist implications.

Haeckel would later write,

“Pantheism teaches that God and the world are one...pantheism is...an advanced conception of nature (and) a polite form of atheism.” The truth of pantheism, confessed Haeckel, “lies in its destruction of the dualist antithesis of God...” The godless world system being constructed, said Haeckel, “substantially agrees with the monism or pantheism of the modern scientist.” (Monism, Ernst Haeckel, www.pantheist.net/)

During the century to follow, Charles Darwin (1809-82) would help spread materialism/methodological naturalism to the masses. As Stephen Jay Gould argues,

“Darwin applied a consistent philosophy of materialism to his interpretation of nature, “and “the ground of all existence; mind, spirit, and God (are reduced to) neural complexity.” (ibid, p. 41)

According to Darwin, natural selection and the laws of heredity acting on matter produced mind, morality, and civilization. By describing how (mystical) natural mechanisms caused the complexity of life to emerge from matter, Darwin helped transform metaphysical materialism from a fantastically bizarre tale told by power-mad Prometheans on the fringe of society to a hallowed scientism principle enshrined and worshipped by modern methodological materialists (one-dimensional naturalists), ‘enlightened’ Westerners and evolutionary theists.

It was during this time that Social Darwinism, Progressivism, Socialism, Communism, Nazism, and Secular Humanism were developed out of scientific materialism. Classical Liberalism on the other hand, was subverted and corrupted by the materialist faith into what is now known as modern Liberalism.

Of these, Marxist Communism (dialectical materialism), is considered to be the most highly developed philosophy of materialism. It rests on three fundamental metaphysical presuppositions:

1. Deified Matter: The Ultimate One Substance which, though non-living, non-intelligent, and non-conscious, nevertheless somehow possesses the emergent properties of life, mind, consciousness, and soul.

2. Evolution: Since Marxist dialectic requires a theory with clashes (thesis and antithesis) and leaps (synthesis), Marxists have all but abandoned vulgar Darwinism and instead embraced punctuated equilibrium:

“Many people confound dialectic with the theory of evolution,” noted G. Plekhanov. “Dialectic is, in fact, a theory of evolution. But it differs profoundly from the vulgar (Darwinian) theory of evolution.” (Fundamental Problems of Marxism, 1929, p. 145)

3. Big Bang/Spontaneous Generation: An offshoot of specifically Darwinian thought accepted unreservedly by Marxists as their dialectic requires a strictly materialist explanation for the origin of life from matter. In the words of M.A. Leonov:

“Marxist philosophical materialism remains beyond all doubt that at some time or other in the remote past, life must have arisen from non-living matter.” (Outline of Dialectical Materialism, 1948, p. 494)

In a modified version of the Stoic conception of the earth as a living organism possessed of its own soul, neo-pantheist dialectical materialism declares that earth is “one entire organism...its organs the various races and nations of men.” Not only is the earth alive and evolving upward on evolution’s magical escalator, but so too are Christianity, history and society, for they also are living entities in a continuous state of motion. And man? In a modified conception of ancient Greek Atomism’s dehumanizing view of man, dialectical materialism states that man is nothing but:

“a colonial aggregation of cells,” and to “consider him an individual would be an error.” Man-—the aggregate of cells-— is nothing but an extension of society, history, and earth. (Russian Textbook on Psychopolitics, Chapter II: The Constitution of Man as a Political Organism)

Robert Jastrow (b. 1925), recipient of NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Studies explains there are only two possible explanations for the origin of life: evolution and supernatural creation ex nihilo:

“...science has no...answer to the question of the origin of life on earth. Perhaps (life) is a miracle. Scientists are reluctant to accept that view, but their choices are limited: either life was created...by the will of a being outside...scientific understanding, or it evolved...spontaneously through chemical reactions...in nonliving matter...The first theory...is a statement of faith in the power of a Supreme Being not subject to the laws of science. The second theory is also an act of faith (which assumes) that the scientific view...is correct, without having concrete evidence to support that belief.” (Until the Sun Dies, Jastrow, 1977, pp. 62-63)

Once more, it matters not at all what you elect to believe or not believe about methodological naturalism and evolution, BroJoeK. Methodological naturalism is what it is and your beliefs about it do not in any way affect its’ nature and certainly not its nihilism. And this is why evolutionary theism’s accommodation of Scripture to methodological naturalism and evolution through the reduction of the book of beginnings (Genesis account of creation ex nihilo)to myth inevitably collapses into mystical materialism or neo-Gnostic pagan nihilism (see Hans Jonas analysis in the essay).

Your faith Bro, is not in the living Holy God who spoke to Moses (creation ex nihilo) but in methodological naturalism and evolution.

[Alamo-Girl]

Point is: I am not at all clear as to why you resist the Thomistic idea that knowledge has two categories: 1) theology based on the Bible and 2) natural-sciences beginning with input from our senses?

That epistemological cut is far too simplistic. Here's a Freeper research project on the subject from 8 years ago to illustrate the wide range of worldviews at that time.

[spirited irish]

“So I would only remind you that natural-science is what it is, and you are not required to believe a word of it.
But just don’t pretend that whatever it is you do believe is somehow “scientific”, because it’s not.”

Spirited: The implied assumption here is that observational science is an Exalted Epistemology; the Oracle of what is, how we know and what we can know, therefore we must submit our minds to its exalted knowledge.

It is no such thing however and those who believe it is have fallen into the folly of Pride of Mind.

It seems we have forgotten that this world, the entire cosmos-—its elements, dark matter, quarks and all else-—is passing away and will ultimately be subjected to a cleansing fire just prior to its renewal. In this light natural science in its many permutations is but knowledge of this world and cosmos in its present but passing state, and while this knowledge has its uses while we are in this world during the time allotted to each man and woman, it is not knowledge that can comfort the soul. It cannot save and deliver the soul.

It is a tragic sign of our inverted age that natural science is elevated over ‘knowledge that saves’-—theology in general and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in particular who warned us to strive to enter in at the strait gate (Luke 13: 24)

[tacticalogic]

Spirited: The implied assumption here is that observational science is an Exalted Epistemology; the Oracle of what is, how we know and what we can know, therefore we must submit our minds to its exalted knowledge.

It is no such thing however and those who believe it is have fallen into the folly of Pride of Mind.

Who's Pride is on the line here because the whole world's scientific community won't bow to their personal religous beliefs?

[spirited irish]

Who’s Pride is on the line here because the whole world’s scientific community won’t bow to their personal religous beliefs?

Spirited: What can be said in response to such foolishness except only the Grace of God can possibly save fools from themselves.

Natural science is lower order knowledge of a world/cosmos that is passing away while the taproot of evolutionary thinking stretches back to the post-flood world where its’ constant companion was reincarnation in a more primitive form.

In a more advanced form evolution/reincarnation/natural science has been traced to Hermes Trismegistus (not his real name), the son of Mizraim, the son of Ham. Hermes was worshipped by Greeks and Romans as a Sun god, the god of natural science/theology (Mystery Religion) and reincarnation.

Darwin received his idea from his pantheist grandfather Erasmus Darwin, a higher order Mason known to attend séances. He in turn received it from Renaissance churchmen and humanists who had turned back to ancient occult pantheist doctrines such as the esoteric Kabbalah, Hermeticism, and Eastern pantheism/reincarnation/evolution/karma.

Nietzsche’s evolutionary conception was preceded by mystical ecstasy. He experienced two mystical encounters with the first one taking place in August, 1881. (Nihilism and Satanic Inversion: America’s ‘New’ Reality of Non-Self and Madness, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3076716/posts )

Charles Andler writes that previous to his scientific reasoning, Nietzsche received revelations during mystical encounters just as Spinoza did. Mystical ecstasy,

“.... preceded (Spinoza’s) system and his geometric form, thus, with Nietzsche mystical ecstasy preceded his scientific reasoning.” (Charles Andler cited by Henri De Lubac, “The Drama of Atheist Humanism,” p. 481)

According to Henri De Lubac, secret knowledge was revealed to Nietzsche that he was “....the first of men to know.’

The shock of it was sudden and profound. Though no direct document relates his experience sure evidence is found in an agitated page of Ecce Homo where Nietzsche wrote:

“Suddenly, with sureness, with indescribable delicacy, a thing makes itself seen, makes itself heard. It shakes you, it overwhelms you right to your innermost depths. You hear it...You let it fill you....A thought blazes forth like a flash of lightening...It imposes itself as a necessity...I never had to choose it. It is an ecstasy....You are enraptured, taken outside of yourself...All of this...is accompanied by a tumultuous feeling of liberty, of independence, of divinity...There you have my experience of the inspiration.” (Lubac, p. 472)

In the autumn of 1882 he experienced his second encounter which he described in the poem Sils Maria:

“I was sitting and waiting, without waiting for anything/Beyond good and evil, tasting Light sometimes and sometimes shade/Absorbed by this brew...When suddenly...what was one became two, And Zarathustra passed before me...” (ibid, p. 475)

It was a vision without a doubt, precise and sudden:

“I could tell you the day and the hour....Zarathustra has fallen on me, he assaults me..” (ibid)

Zarathustra was an evil spirit who confirmed to Nietzsche the ‘truth’ of the revelations already received, which included man’s evolution from worms:

“You [mankind] have made your way from worm to human, and much in you is still worm. Once you were apes, and even now the human being is still more of an ape than any ape is.” (Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra, Zarathustra’s Prologue section 3, trans. by G. Parkes, Oxford University Press, New York, 2005, p. 11)

Henceforth, Nietzsche is an inspired prophet who knows for certain that the God of Revelation is dead, that man’s evolution from worms is absolutely true, and that he is Jesus Christ’s successor, the ‘new’ Christ. Within ten days he drafted by way of automatic writing the whole first book of his prophecy. He called his finished work Zarathustra, the new Bible of scientific evolutionary naturalism, and told the world to throw away all other books, for now you have my Zarathustra, “a new Holy Book.”

Speaking through the writings of the ‘new’ Christ, Zarathustra went on to say that because God had died in the 19th century there would follow two terrible consequences beginning in the 20th century. (Romans 1:18)

First, the 20th century would become one of the most evil century’s in history (160,000,000-350,000,000 men, women, children murdered), and second, a universal madness (Romans 1:21, 22) would break out and turn the once glorious W. Europe and America upside-down.

Though apostates and the apostatizing professed themselves wise, their cognitive thought processes would become darkened (vain) and with their conscience dead to sin they would become fools, meaning they would accept and publicly profess incredibly stupid conceptions of themselves (i.e., man is an evolved worm, ape or robot; man is evolving into god).

And they will persist in elevating natural science and evolutionary thinking over the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.

[tacticalogic]

What can be said in response to such foolishness except only the Grace of God can possibly save fools from themselves.

But you're willing to give it a shot, right?

[BroJoeK]

Thanks for the link to your most interesting 2005 thread.
Seems to me your list of types of knowledge can be boiled down to two:

1) natural knowledge derived from inputs from our senses, as confirmed by other inputs from our senses, and

2) theological knowledge revealed by the Bible and confirmed by revelations from the Bible.

That is the Thomistic dichotomy which is the source of such agitated discussions on this thread and others.
And yet I notice that very few here are willing to acknowledge it, and so must wonder why?

[BroJoeK]

As usual, your posts are full of mis-information and false accusations.
And I will again patiently answer them, one by one, in due time.

Right now am tied up again, will be back later.

[betty boop]

BrojoeK wrote: Point is: I am not at all clear as to why you resist the Thomistic idea that knowledge has two categories: 1) theology based on the Bible and 2) natural-sciences beginning with input from our senses?

To which Alamo-Girl replied: That epistemological cut is far too simplistic.

Earlier, tacticalogic wrote [at Post 480]:

I believe you've just imposed your own religious beliefs as a litmus test of the validity of scientific theories.

First of all, I agree with my dearest sister in Christ's observation that the "epistemic cut" you propose, dear Bro, as between knowledge obtained by means of theological insight and what can be obtained by sense perception according to the methods of natural science is "far too simplistic."

I don't dispute that St. Thomas categorized two aspects of knowledge: "1) natural knowledge derived from inputs from our senses, as confirmed by other inputs from our senses, and 2) theological knowledge revealed by the Bible and confirmed by revelations from the Bible."

But what BroJoeK seems to attribute to St. Thomas is the understanding that these categories are effectively mutually-exclusive, and one is better than the other in gaining "real-world" knowledge. But I have strong doubts that St. Thomas would approve of such an "artificial" and "abstract" separation of the two fundaments of basic human knowledge acquisition.

That is, I strongly doubt that what Bro proposes is what St. Thomas had in mind. Thomas Aquinas is remembered — and manytimes censured — for his systemization of Natural Law Theory, which explicates and integrates the very two categories that Bro apparently sees as necessarily mutually-exclusive. Bro claims that science itself must respect this unseemly and unnatural division, just in order to be "science."

So it's been a big kerfuffle of a dialog so far. Everybody seems to be talking "past" each other.

Hopefully to concentrate our minds wonderfully on this issue — which let's not be shy about it, we call Natural Law Theory, as pioneered by a great Saint and Doctor of the Church — we have the marvelous "interpretation" in specifically "scientific" terms as imagined by a great mathematician and theoretical biologist, Robert Rosen (1934 – 1998), in his book Life Itself (1991).

I was so impressed by Rosen's insights, I drew a picture:

See, we here have the "categories" that Bro apparently wishes to discriminate. But for all our desire to isolate, discriminate the two, they are both, together, necessary as mediators of a higher truth.

For human knowledge to entirely depend on the "Natural World" side of this "divide" means that the "World of Self" side is irrelevant. Which means the World is as it is without respect to inquiring human minds. (Which would come to a big surpirse to, say, Einstein and Bohr, both of whom regarded the "observer problem" as critical to the progress of science.)

But it is the inquiring human mind — inquiry from the World of the Self — that makes science possible. Without the World of the Self, science is, indeed, impossible.

So why, dear Bro, do you think you gain anything by in effect alleging that the world is only reliably knowable by scientific methods that have lost all sense of being connected with higher truths about the world in which we live, which higher truths can never in principle be explained by purely scientific methods?

It is clear to me from meditating on my Rosen's diagram that the World of Nature and the World of the Self are not mutually exclusive entities, but great partners in the explication of the Truth about the constitution of the natural world, including humans.

Meanwhile I have my great and long-time FRiend, tacticalogic, taking me to task for: "impos[ing] [my] own religious beliefs as a litmus test of the validity of scientific theories. "

I am ecstatic to say that so many of my "religious beliefs" have been confirmed by "natural science" these days. At least in physics, and especially physical cosmology.

Can't say more, till a dear friend of mine — whose in-progress work I have had the privilege to see — finally publishes his findings respecting the Big Bang/Inflationary Universe theory and how it precisely dovetails with statements in Genesis 1–4.

* * * * * * *

Thank you ever so much much for writing, my dearest sister in Christ, and for all your ever kindly words of support!

[tacticalogic]

I am ecstatic to say that so many of my "religious beliefs" have been confirmed by "natural science" these days. At least in physics, and especially physical cosmology.

What's your emotional response to the ones that don't?

[betty boop]

What's your emotional response to the ones that don't?

WHAT ONES don't?

Plus, what do my EMOTIONS have to do with our "problem" in the first place?

[tacticalogic]

WHAT ONES don't?

Earlier, you said:

I am ecstatic to say that so many of my "religious beliefs" have been confirmed by "natural science" these days. At least in physics, and especially physical cosmology.

You specified "so many" rather than "all", so obviously some of them have not been confirmed.

Plus, what do my EMOTIONS have to do with our "problem" in the first place?

Your condition of ecstasy seemed important enough to mention, so it appears emotions are of some consideration.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for sharing your views, dear BroJoeK!

But truly the two knowledge types are a false dichotomy as betty boop explains so well in her post just following yours.

And the point of the thread I linked is that most Freepers gain knowledge from a variety of methods and personally have varying degrees of confidence based on the methods for gaining knowledge.

Precious few Freepers exclude theological knowledge whether by direct or indirect revelation. Interestingly, the false dichotomy you claim only recognizes indirect theological knowledge.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your wonderful essay-post, dearest sister in Christ, and for all your encouragements!

Your graphic explicating Rosen's book is particularly illuminating!

But it is the inquiring human mind — inquiry from the World of the Self — that makes science possible. Without the World of the Self, science is, indeed, impossible.

Precisely so.

[BroJoeK]

betty boop: "I don't dispute that St. Thomas categorized two aspects of knowledge: "1) natural knowledge derived from inputs from our senses, as confirmed by other inputs from our senses, and 2) theological knowledge revealed by the Bible and confirmed by revelations from the Bible."

"But what BroJoeK seems to attribute to St. Thomas is the understanding that these categories are effectively mutually-exclusive, and one is better than the other in gaining "real-world" knowledge."

I think I've been very careful to point out in numerous posts that Aquinas himself did not consider the two realms in conflict with each other.
But neither did he deny the existence of two realms, which is what all your illustration seems determined -- come heck or high water -- to do.

And the whole point of this -- the reason I keep bringing it up -- is it shows precisely when and where natural-science and theology split apart as separate realms of knowledge, with different methods of thinking.

After Aquinas "natural-philosophy" (aka "science") becomes a separate realm from theology, then called "the queen of sciences".

Of course Aquinas would strongly oppose what we call "philosophical naturalism", but the methods of science as a discipline distinct from theology began with Aquinas.
At least, that's my understanding.

Again, must run...

[tacticalogic]

And the point of the thread I linked is that most Freepers gain knowledge from a variety of methods and personally have varying degrees of confidence based on the methods for gaining knowledge.

Precious few Freepers exclude theological knowledge whether by direct or indirect revelation. Interestingly, the false dichotomy you claim only recognizes indirect theological knowledge.

In science the coin of the realm is empirical evidence.

Theologcial knowlege may be useful in telling you where to look for that evidence, and what kind of evidence you're looking for. It's still up to you to find and present that evidence.

Bringing complaints of "heresy" into it appears to simply be an attempt to dictate what theological knowlege is allowed, and by extension what empirical evidence may or may not be admitted.

That is not an agreeable proposition.

[Alamo-Girl]

Bringing complaints of "heresy" into it appears to simply be an attempt to dictate what theological knowlege is allowed, and by extension what empirical evidence may or may not be admitted.

Whoa!

You are accusing me of saying things I have not said and holding positions I do not hold.

In the first place, to accuse someone of a heresy, he and I must first have, at some time, shared the same dogma. I have no clue what dogma you embrace and therefore no ground to accuse you of heresy.

In the second place, if I had been asked about God and the scientific method, I would have said:

Man is not the measure of God.

It is a logical absurdity to think that an autonomous creature inhabiting creation can remove himself outside of it to observe all that creation is, all at once, much less deign to use those very creature-relative measures to examine the Creator of it all ex nihilo!

Jeepers...

Everything that man uses as a measure - space, time, autonomy, energy, inertia, qualia, information et al - are parts of the creation itself and not properties of, much less restrictions on, the Creator of them!

That is in fact my big complaint against the abusers of science, the ones who do philosophy/theology under the color of science. They aver that anything which they cannot physically observe and measure therefore cannot exist, i.e. is a superstition of a dim or weak mind. These are not true atheists, the ones who choose not to believe but don't mind if you do. They are in fact anti-God and particularly anti-Christ activists and abusers of science - spineless miscreants at that since they carefully avoid making the same sweeping condemnations of Islamicists.

[tacticalogic]

You are accusing me of saying things I have not said and holding positions I do not hold.

I didn't mean to imply that you did. It was a reference back to, and an attempt to put it into the context of the original article and subject that started the thread.

Apologies for any misunderstanding.

[spirited irish]

Bringing complaints of “heresy” into it appears to simply be an attempt to dictate what theological knowlege is allowed, and by extension what empirical evidence may or may not be admitted.

Spirited: Fyodor Dostoevsky said that with the death of Jehovah, the God of Revelation, all things will be possible.

Men will turn to the creation of their own gods as they’ve done from antiquity, and speaking through their gods will demand the rejection, persecution and burial of anyone who blasphemes against them (their gods) with unbearably hateful words such as heresy.