The Atheist Perversion of Reality

April 5, 2009 | Jean F. Drew

[hosepipe]

[ Yes it is a myth. I can see that I am making progress : ) ]

Ex ch 1-3 is not mythical but metaphorical..
Evolution(of men) is not metaphorical but mythical..

[Alamo-Girl]

I strongly disagree of course that your definition of life is suitable for all kinds of life we might encounter, e.g. life which neither metabolizes nor replicates.

But beyond that, I'm putting your and my definition on the back burner. I just received a book today from betty boop - thank you, dearest sister in Christ - and just by a quick scan of the content I suspect your definition is the "straight man" for what she and Robert Rosen have to say on the subject.

[Alamo-Girl]

The idea of final cause in a certain sense seems to refer to a "pull from the future." For final cause denotes a purpose or goal that manifests formal cause (something analogous to a blueprint or schematic diagram) over time, by means of material (matter) and efficient (force) causes. A purpose or goal thus supervenes over the operations of its own realization in a global, not a step-by-step way. (If I might put it that way.)

Precisely so!

It doesn't seem to matter which approach one uses, the functional property of living "things" cannot be ignored.

Thank you so very much for your wonderful essay-posts, dearest sister in Christ!

[Alamo-Girl]

Contemporary science (i.e., the Newtonian Paradigm) wants to explain everything in terms of material and efficient causes only. Which is why I very strongly believe it has no method for addressing biological systems because in addition to material and efficient causes, organizational causes (so to speak) are at work as well. It seems to me organizational entailments invoke the very idea of formal and final causes. Which incidentally pertain to (fabricated) machines as well as (natural) living organisms.

Indeed. And perhaps that is the main reason this line of reasoning is often met with hostility.

Thank you for your outstanding essay-post, dearest sister in Christ!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your encouragements, dearest sister in Christ!

[MissTickly]

If you have never had independent thought, you wouldn’t and couldn’t understand HOW SIMPLY WONDERFUL IT IS.

“And then along comes MissTickly, who sagaciously notes, “And I believe a lot of good comes from atheism.” Or really??? Like what???”

[MissTickly]

Sorry Hank, But it is SOMETHING. It’s called ‘Independent Thought.’

And it does wonders for the powers of reasoning.

Maybe not start typing if you don’t have at least a little bit of it.

*So I also don’t believe “good comes from atheism,” because it is actually nothing.*

[Hank Kerchief]

It’s called ‘Independent Thought.’

I see. You call yourself and Atheist, and believe that is thinking independently, just like all the others who call themselves atheists.

I suggested that since Atheism is just identifying oneself in terms of something they don’t believe in, it is silly, because there are endless things one doesn’t believe. I do not know another soul who has ever said that (they may have, but I don’t know it) but according to you, that is not independent thought.

So, in your view, thinking the same thing lots of other people think, and repeating what they’ve taught you is “independent thinking,” but thinking something almost no one else thinks and being able to explain why one thinks it is not independent thinking.

Besides, “independent thinking” is redundant. All thinking is independent—of course a lot of people confuse just anything that goes on in their heads with thinking.

Hank

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for sharing those insights from Attila Grandpierre!

Perhaps needless to say, Dr. Grandpierre seems not to regard physics as the "largest model," with biology a "special case" of that model. His proposal involves the conjecture that biology itself is the "largest model," and physics is a special case of it.

As you say that is an inversion of the generally accepted view.

[Alamo-Girl]

I'm fairly certain this is the same guy whose theory we've previously reviewed and (as I recall) was dubbed "the kid" at DarwinCentral.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for keeping me in the loop on this sidebar!

betty boop: Not so, LeGrande. It is entirely possible to regard a final cause independently of its causal agency (i.e., "someone's purpose")

LeGrande: No, you are just trying to put an extra layer of confusion in between the 'final cause' and the creation.

One's ability/inability to conceive of a thing does not make the thing true/false.

More to the point, it is not only possible but also quite common to speak of phenomena in nature without addressing origins. Darwin's theory of evolution is a case in point. His theory addressed speciation of life but not the origin of life. It was not a theory of biogenesis/abiogenesis.

Likewise here, among the properties of living things are the functions of maintenance, repair and replication. One can speak of these functions, that they are machine-like or temporally non-local or purposeful (final cause) without addressing origins.

[LeGrande]

LeGrande, what of the case when "many people" are attempting to use science as a means either of (1) supposedly disproving the existence of God; or (2), in grudging acknowledgement that that is an exercise in futility, then settling for "second-best": supposedly proving that God is entirely irrelevant to anything pertaining to the natural world?

Not to belabor the point, but science can't prove anything. Science is based on falsification, and what isn't falsified isn't proven, it remains a theory.

Boiling it all down, where do we humans get the universal idea of Truth from in the first place, if there is no universal standard by which it can be (1) identified (perceived); (2) known; and (3) relied on? [Check out the seeming paradox implicit in that statement.]

There may not be a 'Universal Truth' we have no guarantees that our quest is achievable.

I do believe that is the very insight at the heart of Descartes' observation that the idea of God is the necessary foundation of every other idea we have or could ever have, including the idea of the personal self, or (as he put it) the ego.

How so? I see the idea of God as a red herring. Also the idea of a God based ego, is another false path.

I believe there is a universal truth. I believe that truth is the quest for truth. It is like life, a process, not an end result.

And yes I know that is circular logic : ) Life is just a feedback loop too.

[metmom]

I believe there is a universal truth. I believe that truth is the quest for truth. It is like life, a process, not an end result. And yes I know that is circular logic

It's not circular logic. It's total, unadulterated nonsense.

[allmendream]

Life that didn't metabolize would break down irreparably. Life that didn't replicate would eventually become extinct.

A necessary condition of life is that it is organized.

A necessary condition of being organized is the need to consume energy to maintain that organization.

And yes, the definition for life I used is the solid basis that others would use as the launch pad for their flights of fancy.

[TXnMA]

There may not be a 'Universal Truth' we have no guarantees that our quest is not achievable.

I shifted the position of a single word. The statement remains equally valid.

[LeGrande]

I shifted the position of a single word. The statement remains equally valid.

You'll get no argument from me : )

[Alamo-Girl]

allmendream's definition of life:

An organization of molecules that consumes energy in order to maintain and replicate its molecular organization.

By your definition, I do not believe the blessed virgin Mary would be considered alive.

Alamo-Girl's definition of life:

Information (Shannon, successful communication): the reduction of uncertainty (Shannon entropy) in the receiver (or molecular machine) as it goes from a before state to an after state.

Living things communicate. Non-living and dead things do not communicate. And that distinction applies at all hierarchies from molecular machinery to organism to collectives to here and there, to physical and non-physical. It is universal because it is math.

By the Shannon definition, the blessed virgin Mary is alive even though she is not in the flesh. Ditto for our spirits even while in the flesh.

So also [is] the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit. – I Cor 15:42-45

To me, the unreasonable effectiveness of math (Wigner) is like God's copyright notice on the cosmos.

Jesus' Name is Word.

[LeGrande]

It's not circular logic. It's total, unadulterated nonsense.

Did you wake up in a bad mood this morning metmom?

I did too. I just realized how devious the Cap and Trade bill is. You may not understand how life is a feedback loop, but I intend to provide some feedback to some very corrupt and stupid people.

[Alamo-Girl]

Much better, dear brother in Christ, thank you!

[hosepipe]

[ Life that didn't metabolize would break down irreparably. / Life that didn't replicate would eventually become extinct. ]

Jesus said the same thing..
"You MUST be born again"- Jesus.. i.e. John ch 6..
Basically, organic life is not eternal life..

An organic machine can exist and mask as life..
but is and was not life at all... the package is not the contents..
But merely the packageing.. of Life..