The above thoughts, written by this actress, give evidence of a deeply lost person. Also, it is evidence of a confused person. Chaos is confusion, and randomly imposed 'structure' on chaos only ads to the chaos, if she were being honest.
"Morality" she suggests is just what the majority agrees on at some point in time. That, too, is randomly imposed, so again just additional chaos on the already identified chaos.
The 'majority' agreed on natural marriage, Ms Moore, but I'll bet you disagreed with it and support unnatural same-sex couplings. More evidence of 'order' or of 'chaos'?
There is only one way to achieve an ultimate morality, and that is to have it issued by The Ultimate Being. This is so self-evident, I wonder how it gets missed by so many atheists.
‘Cause they think they can impose order. We make them uncomfortable with the very truth that they are rebelling against.
The order she proposes is an illusion.
There IS order in Creation - physically evident in mathematics, space/time, physical causation, physical laws and constants - without which there would be no "thing" at all, even chaos.
She should have noticed this and realized that therefor God the Creator IS and objective truth, e.g. morals and rights - are grounded solely in His will.
She lost her mom. The world makes no sense to her if it could take her mom from her.
Atheism often is anger, not disbelief.
But of course the day is coming when she and we will also leave this mortal coil; its part of the natural order of things. The difference is that we have come to know that life does not end, that there is a God that made us and loves us, and that there is eternal principle at work behind what sometimes appears to be chaos.
I wouldn’t write her off. She sounds as if she is begging someone to show her she is wrong.
Actually, this "understanding" is perfectly consistent with Darwinism. In an earlier post, I wrote that Darwin's ToE has been highly effective in affecting the way people think.
As early as the 1930s, Karl Ludwig von Bertalanffy (September 19, 1901 – June 12, 1972), an Austrian-born biologist widely regarded as founder of modern general systems theory, expressed worry about the implications of Darwinist thinking and its potential negative effects on society.
And Ms. Moore's statement is a perfect example of what Bertalanffy was worried about (me too).
Ms. Moore's basic premise seems to be that, at the very root of reality there is only chaos. Chaos which (by definition) can never by itself "organize" anything at all — not the universe, and clearly (to me anyway) not biological life. And so human beings are put in the position of having to "impose" some kind or "order" onto this chaos or lose their ability to negotiate the demands of real existence, and even their sanity. From which it follows that any man's projection is just as "good" as any other man's. For each and every man is, at bottom, just a part of the generally prevailing chaos.
Still, where does Ms. Moore's idea of "good" come from, if all we've got to work with is chaos? After all, she thinks human life is "good" (at least in its post-natal stages), such that it needs to be protected from citizen firearms ownership....
I think a lot of the trouble in society today goes straight to Ms. Moore's understanding of Reality — which is so widely shared. I see two major influences producing this sort of understanding: (1) Darwin's Theory of Evolution; and (2) quantum theory.
For openers, it seems to me the main difficulty is that, respecting these two main influences, your average citizen does not understand what the two theories actually say. Nowadays, a lot of what passes for science seems to be mainly a superficial gloss on what actual science has actually said, as promoted by various and sundry scientific entrepreneurs and gurus, persons usually well-ensconced in academe....
If I might invoke two statements of Richard Dawkins —the amazingly influential evolutionary biologist hunkered down at Oxford — to set the stage for consideration of Influence (1): Darwin's ToE:
"...[T]he Cambrian strata of rocks ... are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history." [emphasis added.]When Dawkins speaks of "evolution," he is, of course, invoking Darwin's theory. This theory proposes the common descent of all biological species from a single Common Ancestor ("CA"). The different, and increasingly complex, biological species emerge via a gradual process of change over time, based on a process of random mutation and natural selection. Mutations are either successful or unsuccessful. If the latter, they have no effect. If the former, new "good traits" will have been introduced into the species such that offspring generated from this "good" — defined as beneficial to survival — mutation will continue to successfully propagate the species to which they belong. From which expectation a basis is laid for the next bunch of random mutations, to see which will not only stabilize the existing species, but over time achieve such a level of "complexity" that not only new species, but entirely novel phyla will eventually emerge. All purely by "random," "natural" processes! The fundamental chaos is overcome — by accident, by chance! Yay!!!
Unfortunately to this project, the Cambrian Explosion — which occurred around 540 million years ago — throws a money wrench into this machinery. Forget about "incremental biological change" here: This was a sudden, inexplicable "quantum jump" in biological evolution. To which Dawkins was referring in his above statement.
Now a "quantum jump" is hardly a "gradual process."
But Dawkins is undaunted by this, which he implicitly acknowledges in his second statement I want to cite here:
"Without gradualness ... we are back to a miracle."But Dawkins — an evangelical atheist — will have no miracles!!! At least, no miracles that are not of his own making. Which he then proceeds to make, with his famous "Climbing the Backside of Mount Improbable" analogy.
Dear Ms. Moore, please pay attention here: Dawkins admits that there is no way to "scale the mountain of biology" from a frontal attack. That is, there is no way to explain biology as a random process yielding what we see all around us as a product of pure Chance — Chaos becoming articulate somehow. He sees the futility of trying to scale the mountain "from the front." So he proposes we come at the problem from "behind," envisioned as an indeterminable series of very small, "gradualist" steps that, given an indeterminable duration of time, will somehow make Chance productive in terms of accounting for complex, living systems in Nature.
In short, Dawkins proposes that a "chancy universe" eventually generates "non-chancy" biology, in "X" time. [Question: What is the expected duration of "X?"] To me, I find this idea virtually unintelligible.
For one thing, never mind what happened in the Cambrian here. If one insists on a universe premised in Chaos, I need to retort: What is "chancy" about proteins??? — which are absolutely foundational to biological processes, and bases of genes?
There are thousands of proteins; yet every single one of them is composed of amino acids, of which there are only 20. You can put together whatever of these 20 amino acids you want to, in any combination; but the only functional proteins that can emerge from such a random combination of amino acids will be those that "fold" properly.
It turns out that functional proteins are rare because their constituting amino acids must be structured in the "correct" sequence. If we are speaking of "correct," instantly we know we are NOT speaking of something which is "random." Yet absent the correct sequence, the "folding" necessary to make a protein functional does not occur.
And without functional proteins, Life does not exist.
Ergo, biology at its very foundations cannot be random, or "chaotic." Even to speak of a "code" — be it WRT protein fabrication or DNA itself — is to entail the necessity of there having been an intelligent agent to have constructed the "code" in the first place.
Any "code" necessarily is targeted towards, or entails, the implementation of a future state — that is to say a state of affairs that does not currently exist.... Now we are in "final cause" territory — which reductionist scientists such as Richard Dawkins — and Darwin himself — utterly reject as a matter of principle.
RE: Influence (2), quantum theory: To the layman, the quantum world is totally unintelligible. To such folk I would say: It is unintelligible, on Newtonian grounds.
Yet Newton's astonishingly brilliant and successful physico/mechanical description of Nature did not have the benefit of the insights produced in more recent times by the great quantum theorists. It turns out that Newtonian science is something like 99.9% "correct" WRT its predictions of the basic operations of our world; but it did not have the benefit of newer insights from both relativity and quantum science.
Newton's world "works" only within a regime that does not have to deal with speeds that approach the superluminal or physical entities so small they cannot be detected by means of direct observation.
Quantum theory proposes to explain the latter.
The quantum theory seems to have been extraordinarily "scary" to some people. (People who are intellectually sensitive enough to see the problems it poses to our normal human schemes of thought).
The quantum world IS a world of "chaos." It also happens to be the very ground and seat of pure, natural potentiality. Everything that exists has its material foundation in the quantum world. Yet by itself, the quantum world cannot produce "form"; it is pure potentiality, waiting for "instructions," in order to translate its potentiality into actual existent beings in the natural world.
So I would ask Ms. Julianne Moore: What mind do you think is capable of generating information/instructions by which such pure potentiality is translated into the actuating forms of the phenomena — natural and social — that you encounter every day of your life???
I daresay, Ms Moore has so far been unable to follow such matters in any intelligent — or intelligible — way. Indeed, such questions very likely have marginal interest to her anyway; that is to say, very likely not of any real interest to her at all, when you boil it all down. Still, she takes it upon herself to "hold forth" on such questions — because as a celebrity, she is "empowered" to "speak." It doesn't seem to matter that she doesn't have a clue about what she's talking about....
So here we are; this is the world we live in, dear brother in Christ, as "governed" by such "minds."
To all of which, all I can say is: Atheists are seriously barking up the wrong tree. And likely will pay the penalty for that, in due course.
Not that I wish atheists any ill. I only hope they can get better, to be healed from their self-imposed afflictions, from which the only hope of recovery is in the God they reject.
God bless, dear brother in Christ — thank you so much for writing!