It’s this kind of observation that drives Darwinists right off the edge. Their outrage stems not from its supposed error, but rather, I think, from how devastatingly dead-on accurate it is (they will never admit that). I’ve not seen, nor heard of, any valid surveys reporting numbers on how many scientists actually do deny the existence of free will (nevertheless a goodly number, I think). But any who do, have instantly eviscerated any claim they have to ontological validity in any judgments they make, even purely scientific ones. However multiple reasons they have to offer for conclusions they make, having eschewed free will, they must face the ultimate fact that they have no rational reason for their conclusions and beliefs other than that they are helpless to conclude or believe anything other than what they do, in fact, think. Now, that goes right by blind faith to . . . what? I don’t know. I imagine philosophy has a name for it (surely something better than Nihilism) and I suspect, dear betty, that you know what that is. {8^)
”I, for one — a self-confessed Christian — do not equate creationism with science.
Of course not. Creationism is so much more than that. Science is simply one way we keep in touch with the Lord. And the fact that Science also betters our condition in so many ways is, I think, no mere coincidence. Creationists make a fundamental error when they seek to argue science with Scientists in MHO (you Creationists who want to continue banging your heads against a brick wall – go ahead, don’t let me stop you). Scientists are so much more interesting (and entertaining) when they attempt to translate their science theories and science facts into cultural or political values. Ask the right question and all one usually gets in return is the forum equivalent of a blank stare, or the sudden need to be somewhere else.
Thanks so much for the HiHo, boop. I really appreciate your kindness and consideration.
Brilliantly put, YHAOS!
Yep, "nihilism" will not do as a descriptor of this phenomenon. Nihilism is the by-product of something more fundamental, and classical philosophy has a name for it: Nosos, which Plato said was a pneumopathological disorder, or a disease of the spirit. Of course, many of these same people deny there is any such thing as the human spirit.... So, no problem!
Cicero (were he alive today) likely would say these people exist in a state of aspernatio rationalis, which is the "refusal to apperceive" the reality that surrounds them. But then I've noticed many such thinkers tend to be rather self-absorbed, self-preoccupied....
Thank you so much for this GREAT essay/post, YHAOS!