Posted on 12/29/2011 1:01:09 PM PST by daletoons
Atheist militant Richard Dawkins has produced a children's book entitled "The Magic of Reality" and in doing so has joined the Millstone Swim and Dive Club. Spreading his venom for God to kids under the guise of Scientism is about as putrid as it gets. Children using simple God-given logic conclude the existence of a creator. It requires an abandonment of logic to attain self omniscience and declare there is no God. The materialist's faith in the escape hatch of "there just wasn't enough evidence for me" won't wash on judgement day. Here's a book idea: The ghost of Christopher Hitchens, Jacob Marley style, appears to Richard Dawkins and sets him straight. Dickey would probably make a hash of it, too bad Hitchens isn't still around to write it.
Happy New Year, metmom! Ya done good. The DC retread wasn't on the site for 2 days before he was banned! FReegards!
Sure it does. After you have begged the question by assuming that observable members 'evolved', you must then commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent to claim that member 'supports' the framework.
Michael Polanyi was a wonderfully astute critic of the scientific enterprise. In Science, Faith, and Society (1946), he wrote:
Every interpretation of nature, whether scientific, non-scientific, or anti-scientific, is based on some intuitive conception of the general nature of things.... If the mind is uninformed by intuitive contact with reality, it is bound to place unreal and fruitless interpretations on the evidence before it.This "intuitive conception of the general nature of things" is a world view, or cosmology. The "rational skeptic" essentially denies, or tries to deny, spiritual reality altogether. And yet Polanyi believes that science itself is a spiritual enterprise. We may ask
...what the grounds are on which we hold the conviction that truth is real, that there is a general love of truth among men and a capacity to find it? These convictions ... have recently become involved in a fateful crisis. Our examination of the ultimate grounds on which our obligation to truth rests will therefore quite naturally turn into an analysis of the general crisis in which our civilization is involved today.I find it charming that Polanyi agrees with Aristotle: "All men desire to know." Yet lately, viewing the skeptical secularism that seems to have an increasingly iron grip on the social mind these days, I wonder how that statement can be defended. For it seems clear to me that NOT all men desire to know; it appears that skeptics, materialists, atheists, carve out their respective little fiefdoms by "consciously, deliberately" "NOT knowing" entire sectors of "inconvenient" Reality in which they are already fully, firmly, existentially engaged. (A clumsy way to put it, but the best I can do right now.)
This crisis has become most sharply manifest as a menace to all intellectual freedom based on the acceptance of a universal obligation to truth.... [T]he strictly limited nature of intellectual freedom had never been fully accepted by those who helped to establish it. They did not recognize that freedom cannot be conceived except in terms of particular obligations of conscience, the pursuit of which it permits and prescribes. They thought that freedom cannot mean the acceptance of any particular obligations and it is in fact incompatible with a prescription of its own limits. Freedom of thought in particular meant in their view the rejection of any kind of traditional beliefs, including, it would appear now, those on which freedom itself is based. They held that if any limits whatever were set to doubt, there would be no way of restraining intolerance and avoiding obscurantism....
Cartesian doubt and Locke's empiricism became ... the two powerful levers of further liberation from established authority. These philosophies and those of their disciples had the purpose of demonstrating that truth could be established and a rich and satisfying doctrine of man and the universe built up on the foundations of critical reason alone. Self-evident propositions or the testimony of the senses, or else a combination of the two, would suffice. Both Descartes and Locke maintained their belief in the revealed Christian doctrine. And though the later rationalists succeeding them tended toward deism or atheism they remained firm in their conviction that the critical faculties of man unaided by any powers of belief could establish the truth of science and the canons of fairness, decency, and freedom. Thinkers like Wells and John Dewey, and the whole generation of minds they reflect, still profess it today, and so do even those most extreme empiricists who profess the philosophy of logical positivism. They are all convinced that our main troubles still come from our having not altogether rid ourselves of all traditional beliefs and continue to set their hopes on further applications of the method of radical scepticism and empiricism.
It seems clear, however, that this method does not represent truly the process by which liberal intellectual life was in fact established. It is true that there was a time when the sheer destruction of authority did progressively release new discoveries in every field of inquiry. But none of these discoveries — not even those of science — were based on the experience of our senses aided only by self-evident propositions.... The method of disbelieving every proposition which cannot be verified by definitely prescribed operations would destroy all belief in natural science. And it would destroy, in fact, belief in truth and the love of truth itself which is the condition of all free thought. The method leads to complete metaphysical nihilism and thus denies the basis for any universally significant manifestation of the human mind....
It might be objected that sceptics have in fact continued to love and uphold both science and its sister domains, as well as the regime of objectivity and tolerance in general. But it only shows that people can carry on a great tradition even while professing a philosophy which denies its premisses. For the adherents of a great tradition are largely unaware of their own premisses, which lie deeply embedded in the unconscious foundations of practice.... Thus science has been carried on successfully for the last 300 years by scientists who were assuming that they were practicing the Baconian method, which in fact can yield no scientific results whatever. Far from realizing the internal contradiction in which they are involved, those practicing a tradition in the light of a false theory feel convinced — as have been generations of empiricists descending from Locke — that their false theories are vindicated by the success of their right practice. [Emphasis added.]
Or another way to put it: Skeptics (et al.) delight in "sawing off" the (ontological and epistemological) "branch" on which they sit, all the while insisting that the "tree" does not exist — so there can be "no harm"....
Polanyi believes that no society can be or remain free if it detaches itself from Truth.
We're dealing with this problem in spades right now. And that we see it reflected in so many of our present correspondents here at FR is deeply disheartening to me.
God bless and Godspeed, dear aruanan! Thank you ever so much for introducing the magisterial Michael Polanyi to this thread!
she beleives she has a mind because somewhere alogn hte lien she mearly read about having a mind- she can’t see,hear,feel,taste or smell her mind, but beleives she has one anyways because someone tells her she has one- but yet, she doesn’t beleive in anything that can’t be seen,heard,felt,tasted,or smelled, her mind must not exist- so go easy on her- she’s torn between beleiving that she poses somethign that isn’t physical, and believing in a God that can’t be known unless one gives their life to Him.
You precisely outline your own tactics. But your tactics won’t work because you can’t get anyone among your antagonists to buy your con that the natural difficulties presented by the Atheist belief that no God exists, can be altogether avoided by alternatively describing it as a “lack of belief” and by denying the obvious.
atheism | noun
the theory or belief that God does not exist.
(from my Mac OSX dictionary)
You pretend to champion Atheism and Science; and quote Science in support of your Atheistic beliefs. But Science is totally wrapped up in the intellectual and practical pursuits encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment, and takes no concern with spiritual thoughts or beliefs (as our many FRscience friends for years have reminded us with howls of protest so thunderous as to rattle the very rafters of Heaven). Which leaves your faith in Atheism wandering about in the wilderness (to you) of religious philosophy.
So you are driven to devise your own definition of Atheism in blatant defiance of all the norms and conventions of meaning and human communication. Which lays bare your motives as essentially political.
Thanks again, betty, and mom for the pings.
Where did I “quote science?”
Actually, dear brother in Christ, I suspect A_perfect_lady is innocent of that charge. I don't think she's so much "political" as relatively uninformed. (My polite way of saying "essentially clueless" re: the subject matter at hand. Which only goes to say she's got some homework to do, not that she's "stupid," let alone "antisocial"....)
Forgive me, A_perfect_lady, if my words give you offense. Actually, I hold you in higher esteem than you might imagine.
And certainly I wish you both, my friends, every best wish in every way....
I was raised Baptist. I just came to the conclusion that it’s all nonsense. Politically, I am very conservative, though more on fiscal matters than on social matters.
Well, what can I say to that except that some of the finest people (read: minds) that I (who tends theologically to RC) know just happen to be Baptists? (Or Calvinists? Or Anglicans?) What is the "nonsense," in your view, in their testimony of Truth?
It's good to be conservative on fiscal maters. But I don't see how that exactly gives you a license to be liberal on social matters. Indeed, it seems to me that the remediation (at public expense) of social pathology of one description or another is what causes the main drain on the public purse these days.
The challenge is to see the inevitable logical connection between the two....
Or so it seems to me, FWIW.
Been lurking on this thread since the beginning...
My take on APL [and all else who think the Bible is full of errors rather than the source of absolute truth]
Faith is a heart matter first and foremost. Folks who read the Bible strictly for content can always find stuff to criticize. There’s a scripture [iicrc] that indicates the Bible is written the way it’s written to keep those spiritually blind in darkness as to it’s meaning.
Only God and the individual knows the true condition of their heart. Only God can correct this fallen condition and only the person can decide to open their heart when they here him knocking...
That a Sentient Magical Being that has existed forever one day got "bored," made the vast Universe (but apparently only populated one planet), made humans and then didn't like how they turned out, and required a human sacrifice in order to forgive them for being just exactly what He made them. It's just a silly story. Like Charlotte's Web, but less entertaining.
It's good to be conservative on fiscal maters. But I don't see how that exactly gives you a license to be liberal on social matters.
I don't need a license. But as it is, my views on gay marriage and immigration are pretty much in line with most of FR, I'm just not very passionate about them. I can't drum up the fire to be against abortion, though. This country really doesn't need several thousand more little thugs running around playing Knock Out King.
Indeed, it seems to me that the remediation (at public expense) of social pathology of one description or another is what causes the main drain on the public purse these days.
Yes, definitely.
Yes, exactly. That's what I've been saying all along: you have to believe first. You see it (evidence, truth, whatever) because you believe it, not the other way around.
[ Lying is frowned upon here. ]
Actually I allow lying .... I just grade it..
Good lies are entertaining, bad ones just suck..
New Species development is a very good lie.. Grade “A”..
Without a good evolution yarn science fiction would be lame..
Star Wars, Star Trek, Harry Potter all of them..
Reality however requires no proof, theres nothing to prove..
I have “faith” that evolution is good entertainment..
If that's so, then how do we fit the epiphany of Ms. Evancho into that model?
Just wondering, dear brother!
#19 A simple “we don’t know yet” is enough for rational people. Who on earth comes up with SOME BIG INVISIBLE MAGIC CREATURE DID IT! LET’S FIGURE OUT WHAT IT WANTS! I mean, seriously?
#59 Happily, miracles from 2000 or more years ago can’t be investigated at all.
#87 The difference between "everything" and "God" is that I can see the "everything" all around me.
#98 Happily, if I fail to believe in science, no nutcase comes along telling me I'm going to burn for eternity. If something seems to be true and is later shown to be false, I can stop believing it with impunity.
Unlike Christianity, where Jesus told his followers that he would return in their lifetime. He didn't... but you'd better keep believing. You'd just better, boy... oh boy oh boy you better keep that faith, baby, or you're gonna burn.
You don't really get scientists saying that. (Well, the global warmers tried it, but I don't think they're going to be able to carry it off much longer.)
#125 What's moral about suspending disbelief in any respect? This is a serious question... why is that "moral"? Because I really don't get it.
#159 The data seems to be dependent on the outcome. After all, we must come up with an interpretation that allows it to remain "true."
#247 Coming up with a series of questions to which the easiest answer is "Goddidit" (to paraphrase an earlier poster) is not very convincing to me, because accepting a God simply leads to another set of questions to which the only honest answer for even the most devout theist is "I don't know." In other words, when the question is "How?" and you reply with "Who," the atheist can still ask "Okay, but HOW?" and we'll all still be back at square one. With "We don't know."
#318 Remember what belief is: a conviction that something is true, even without evidence. You might describe my acceptance of the laws of physics as a "belief" but it isn't: I don't distrust gravity because all the evidence supports that gravity is in effect and will remain so. But if tomorrow I start floating, I'll abandon that assumption immediately, based on the evidence. Do you understand?
#330 You are quite wrong. I have values, priorities, and I operate on certain assumptions if -- and only if -- they aren't countered by evidence that I find to be valid.
But where’s the SCIENCE? The only thing I said about science is that I accept the laws of physics. Is taking gravity for granted a controversial stance now?
In terms of Republican-Democrat politics, probably so.
But politics permeates the social fabric. Politics family, politics office, politics FR ( ^8 }, politics business, & on, & on, & on. Wherever you have human action, you have politics. Sometimes it’s called ‘networking.’ The object is to gain an advantage (often legitimate, but often not so legit). Where the objective is not so legit, the first casualty is usually communication (the “blatant defiance of all the norms and conventions of meaning and human communication”). For example, when a call for surrender is made more palatable by renaming surrender a “compromise.”
The prostitution of meaning and human communication. An early manifestation of troll droppings.
Red herring. Never proposed accepting gravity to be controversial.
“But where’s the SCIENCE? The only thing I said about science is that I accept the laws of physics.”
Science: the last refuge of the Materialist (Atheist). But he (she) dare not invoke the word in denying the existence of God. So the conventions must be adopted without ever uttering, “Science says.” In truth, Science is not competent to make such judgments.
The alternative is to remain completely passive like a rug on the floor and pretend to live a life that extends little beyond washing and shopping for beans and toilet paper.
You’ve chosen both options.
You’re busted, dear lady. By a number of people who are a lot smarter than me.
No hard feelings (I don’t propose to burn you at a stake or dunk you in a pond).
Actually, I’m the washing, shopping for beans, and toilet paper type. I don’t care how the universe began. I do care about my budget, my job, my home, my family, my pets, my health... you know... LIFE.
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.