Falling Stars, Damnable Heresy, and the Spirit of Evolution

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

[BroJoeK]

YHAOS: "Accordingly then, “Darwinism,” indeed all of what me might call Science, can’t possibly be involved in heresy because, not being involved in spiritual matters or anything having to do with value judgments, it has nothing to say to the Judeo-Christian Tradition, or to any religion.

"But, then along comes a fellow like Richard Dawkins, proclaiming opinions which seem profoundly at odds with what is generally accepted, claiming there are visible implications for moral judgments and proclaiming the existence of value criteria in the Theory of Evolution, even if what he and some of his colleagues have to say is a human horror."

This appears to be the core of your argument, and the very site of your Big Switcheroo.

The truth of the matter is that natural-science itself is a very limited, restricted enterprise requiring: natural explanations for natural processes.
So, whenever some scientist, be it Dawkins or anybody else expresses their philosophical, metaphysical, ontological or religious opinions, those are not, by definition, "scientific".

So Dawkins can say whatever he wishes philosophically -- it's just him talking, not science itself.
If Dawkins says:

"The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer.
I think that it is a scientific question.
My answer is no.” [emphasis mine].

Those are opinions to which Dawkins is certainly entitled, but which, by definition, are not scientific.

YHAOS: "Dawkins is not alone.
There are many noted Scientists of renown who agree."

But many other scientists are not atheists, including some of the best known, from Albert Einstein to Max Plank to even (perhaps) Stephen Hawking.
And many scientists throughout history have been self-acknowledged Christians, including this list.

So, your practice of equating science in general, and "Darwinism" in specific with atheism is simply false, and you should stop doing it, FRiend.

Finally, I recently stumbled on a very nice chart, which could apply to most any thread here.
I think we'd all do well to examine it and decide at which levels our own arguments should fall:

[Pan_Yan]

I am so stealing that chart.

[tacticalogic]

American politics has become an issue purely about control of the People, and virtually everything said or done becomes someone’s heresy, whether they chose to frame it in that expression, or not. It’s too late for you to attempt to regain your propagandist talking points by confining the word “heresy” to the narrow meaning your purposes require.

A finding of "heresey" requires a standard doctrine that is being deviated from. The standard being used in the article is belief in a literal interpreation of the account of Creation from the Book of Genesis.

What you want is to make that belief a political litmus test, essentially establishing a standard of "political correctness" that says only people who hold that religious belief are to be considered politically acceptable.

Disagreements over Biblical interpretation have been going on for centuries - this is not news. Neither is wanting to make it a political litmus test. The Founders saw the effects of doing it and wanted none of it. I agree with them.

[BroJoeK]

;-)

[tacticalogic]

With respect to “Science heresy,” let us not forget that Marxist Communists called their “religion” of evolutionary naturalism, Scientific Socialism.

I assume tht at the same time I am supposed to forget that "guilt by association" is a logical fallacy.

[spirited irish]

I assume tht at the same time I am supposed to forget that “guilt by association” is a logical fallacy.

Spirited: No one was thinking that you are to forget something, or anything, for that matter. The comment is not about you or your feelings.

It’s so very much healthier to not assume that every remark is really about “me, myself, and I.”

[tacticalogic]

The comment is not about you or your feelings.

I stand corrected. The statement I responded to actually said "let us not forget", so it isn't about controlling what I think, but what everyone thinks.

[Larry Lucido]

I, too, would like to know why this is in News instead of Religion.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Americans have been deceived; their thoughts, words, and actions restrained in a psychological strait-jacket. So successfully have Americans been conditioned to “think” within the straitjacket that they try to force it upon all who refuse its’ constraints.

Unfortunately, even conservatives are still thinking in a strait jacket. And I don't anticipate that changing anytime soon. Certainly not when conservatives are worrying about "western civilization" and turning A-mighty G-d into a mere utilitarian prop for it instead of judging their every assumption by the Revelation of G-d.

How many "conservatives" are willing to even consider Theocracy instead of rejecting it automatically because Thomas Jefferson wouldn't have liked it?

[YHAOS]

Love your pyramid chart. Really cool. Whom do I credit for its use?
You would, indeed, do well to examine the chart for your use of its categories.

It’s been my experience that the arguments of 0bamatrons do not rise above the pyramid’s 4th level (contradiction), and generally sputters and stalls out at attempts to rise above the second (Ad Hominem) level.

By the way, it must be thought that Liberals, 0bamatrons, RINOs, and other Repubics in general, would have some difficulty in discerning the subtle distinction to be found in the bottom two levels (Ad Hominem and Name-calling) of the pyramid (clearly, another reason for referring to all Liberals as “bottom feeders”). They all seem to mix the two levels apparently without regard for their subtleties.

The simple matter is this whole “struggle” is all about seizing the control of power and wealth: power over Conservatives and the confiscation of Conservative wealth (Liberals will surrender their very souls with nothing more than a whimper - if even so much as that). Put simply, a fight over money and control of our backsides. Liberals have taken over Science and use it to demonstrate their “superiority” over Conservatives. Liberals do not believe anything of value exists beyond backsides. Why don’t you address your objections to them?

“The truth of the matter is that natural-science itself is a very limited, restricted enterprise requiring: natural explanations for natural processes.”

Something about which I’ve been trying to convince my antagonists for years now . . . without success. I’ve had little trouble with my Judeo-Christian friends; they understand the point, that Science is science. It is not the Judeo-Christian Tradition that mistakenly thinks Science is an ethical and moral system designed to guide us in the value-judgments with which we must deal. The truth is both Liberals and Scientists know better, but dare not admit it.

“Dawkins can say whatever he wishes philosophically -- it's just him talking, not science itself.”

Don’t be insulting and disingenuous. Dawkins certainly can say whatever he wishes. It is, indeed, just him talking. That is not, however, how he represents himself to the public (which you should well know and understand). Dawkins presents himself (deservedly) as an eminent evolutionary biologist and presents (undeservedly) his “opinions” as authoritative and definitive (verily canonical), therefore requiring unquestioning acceptance. Has anyone on his side of the issue ever declared that his opinions are simply that, and cannot be represented, in any fashion, as scientifically valid? Have you? Not under any circumstances, I’ll wager, lest you experience the modern version of the public stoning.

Public stonings no longer remain the sole province of the religious. While Moslems still indulge in the real thing as well as the virtual (and perhaps other religions . . . I am not a fanatical follower of the practice and therefore cannot say), Judeo-Christians have abandoned both the literal tradition (let him without sin cast the first stone) and the less violent but no less brutal scandal-mongering version. But the virtual, if not the literal, practice has been taken up with enthusiasm by 0bamatrons (and by Liberals generally) and by Scientists panicked at the thought of the loss of federal grant money, or the loss of the control of other public money.

“But many other scientists are not atheists . . . ”

So I’ve heard many times, and that’s fine. Let them, then, call their fellow scientists on their many violations of the cardinal principles of Science. Instead they remain silent and attack rather the critics of these violations. Dawkins counts on his eminence to let him skate free from any consequences for his scientific heresies, as do many another like him. And skate free they do.

“your practice of equating science in general, and "Darwinism" in specific with atheism is simply false, and you should stop doing it, FRiend.”

You mischaracterize my criticisms, and rather clumsily at that, so your invitation to shut up will have to remain unsatisfied.

[YHAOS]

“. . . history shows that there has been no “religion” more intolerant of “heretics” and more willing to exterminate “heretics” (60,000,000 + men, women, and children) than the Mullahs of Scientific Socialism.”

Precisely stated and eloquently put spirited. You are an unfailing blessing.

[Alamo-Girl]

Indeed.

[YHAOS]

You propose to have me take ownership of the tactics in which you so enthusiastically indulge. Not likely, Pilgrim.

“What you want is to make that belief a political litmus test,”

So you assert. The assertion does not prove the fact. Prove it.

“The Founders saw the effects of doing it (Establishing a religious doctrine that held any deviation to be heresy) and wanted none of it.”

The Founders were Christian men who were convinced that no viable government could long endure without a sound moral foundation, and they thought its best foundation was to be found (as Adams put it) in the more general Christian principles. They were virtually unanimous in their opposition to Establishment Religion, which meant to them the elevation of one specific religious doctrine to a place of dominance over all other doctrines thereby rendering any deviation from that doctrine a “heresy.”

I thought that in my post #35 I made clear my opposition to the imposition of any form of heresy, but apparently you were so focused on your objective of confining heresy to a single target that you could not accept any deviation from your objective as being anything but objectionable to you.

I find no compelling reason why I must tailor my words and thoughts to your objectives.

[tacticalogic]

I thought that in my post #35 I made clear my opposition to the imposition of any form of heresy

You dedicated that post to arguing over the definition of heresy. There's nothing there I can find states what your political position is.

[BroJoeK]

YHAOS: "Love your pyramid chart. Really cool.
Whom do I credit for its use?"

A lot of big words get thrown around on these threads, and one is "ad hominem", so I thought I should look it up to see just exactly what it refers to.
Well, it didn't take long.
This site defines "ad hominem", and credits the chart to Paul Graham.

YHAOS: "It’s been my experience that the arguments of 0bamatrons do not rise above the pyramid’s 4th level (contradiction), and generally sputters and stalls out at attempts to rise above the second (Ad Hominem) level."

Fortunately, that never happens on Free Republic, right? ;-)

YHAOS: "Liberals have taken over Science and use it to demonstrate their “superiority” over Conservatives.
Liberals do not believe anything of value exists beyond backsides.
Why don’t you address your objections to them?"

First, just so we're clear: today's word "science" refers to the classical term, "natural-science", which is a sub-branch of "natural-philosophy" which ranks beside "theology", the "queen of sciences".
This understanding dates back to the time of St. Thomas Aquinas.

So I thought I might help you out by noting that liberals expressing their opinions on religion are not speaking "scientifically".
Don't blame "science" or "Darwinism" for liberal political agendas.

YHAOS: "Has anyone on his side of the issue ever declared that his opinions are simply that, and cannot be represented, in any fashion, as scientifically valid?
Have you? Not under any circumstances, I’ll wager,"

You got me there -- I confess that in all these years I've never read, posted on or sent money to any site other than Free Republic, and why should I?
So I address problems I see here, and one of them is that many posters (including YHAOS?) get confused when they hear of a scientist giving his/her personal opinions on matters religious or philosophical, etc.
They suppose that because a scientist said it, then it must be scientific.
Well, the fact is that religious opinions are not scientific, regardless of who gives them.

YHAOS: "So I’ve heard many times, and that’s fine. Let them, then, call their fellow scientists on their many violations of the cardinal principles of Science.
Instead they remain silent and attack rather the critics of these violations."

Every scientist is entitled to hold and express his/her personal philosophical or religious opinions.
And, so long as they don't claim those opinions are science itself, there's nothing dishonest about it.
In the Dawkin's quote above, he says:

"I think that it is a scientific question. My answer is no."

I think Dawkins is expressing his non-scientific opinion, which is obviously wrong and should be dismissed as inappropriate and out of line.

Of course the media loves to lionize such people, but believers need a raincoat to go out in the media-storm anyway.
Dawkins' idea is just one more wind-blown water drop to roll off our backs.

YHAOS: "You mischaracterize my criticisms, and rather clumsily at that, so your invitation to shut up will have to remain unsatisfied."

I'll take that as a sincere denial and rejection of the false impression your words leave, and thank you for it, FRiend.

[spirited irish]

BroJoeK: But many other scientists are not atheists, including some of the best known, from Albert Einstein to Max Plank to even (perhaps) Stephen Hawking.

Spirited: These men are atheists only with respect to their unbelief in a living, personal Creator who by Divine Providence upholds the souls of men and all things within the space-time dimension yet nevertheless exists outside of the cosmos/nature (space-time dimension).

Of course none of these men were atheists with respect to their religiously held belief in the ‘nature’ philosophies and/or nature religions (i.e., Epicurean Materialism, Neo-Platonic or Eastern Pantheism) they embraced.

All nature religions/philosophical systems are monist by nature. Monism expresses the very ancient idea that all that exists is either spiritualized matter or physical matter and the evolutionary, emergent, or emmanationist energies working in and through the One Substance over vast ages of time.

No nature religion or philosophical system is able to account for the origin of life and conscious life in particular. This is why Francis Crick among others (including Richard Dawkins), has moved away from abiogenesis (life emerged out of spontaneously generated matter) and toward pan spermia conceptions, the idea that perhaps life hitched a ride on an asteroid to our planet or maybe extraterrestrials brought life here. But as Crick has honestly admitted, pan spermia merely moves the problem of life out into deep space.

[spirited irish]

“Unfortunately, even conservatives are still thinking in a strait jacket. And I don’t anticipate that changing anytime soon”

Spirited: This is not surprising given that evolutionary thinking has been transforming the minds of Westerners and Americans for many long years. From cave-man movies to the GEICO cave-man commercials, to the teaching of Darwinism in universities and grade-schools, to evolution-themed science fiction, the constant implication is that life began at the bottom and has been riding an upward moving escalator from primordial matter to dinosaurs, to cave-man to man to deep space extraterrestrials.

Modern Westerners cannot think straight because evolution inverts creation, and where a god is mentioned it is an evolving nature deity such as Teilhard’s invention.

Teilhard’s deity finally emerges out of but remains completely immanent within matter, which by virtue of this deity is now spiritual rather than physical, and divine.

[spirited irish]

“A finding of “heresey” requires a standard doctrine that is being deviated from. “

Spirited: To ancient nature-worshippers as represented by the Epicureans (physical materialists) and Stoics (spiritual materialists) the Christian teaching that a living, personal Creator upholds the souls of men and all of creation yet exists outside of nature (space time dimension) was not only offensive but blasphemous and heretical, as they believed that the substance and actions of God were fully dispersed within nature. Worse was the teaching that Jesus Christ is God Incarnate, which if true meant that God had incarnated within the evil matter in which the divine sparks of men were entombed and from which they sought escape.

Philosophically, Darwinism is physical materialism, an updated version of Epicureanism, while Teilhardism is spiritual materialism, an updated version of Stoicism and Westernized pantheist Hinduism. To religious believers of either or both, supernatural Christian theism is as offensive, heretical and blasphemous as it was to ancient Greeks. If this was not so then nature religion Mullahs would not be persecuting, hounding and censoring all public talk about Christian theism and demanding it be strictly forced out of the public arena. Nor would they be prohibiting prayer and demanding the removal of cemetery crosses, crèches, and even the public mention of Jesus Christ.

[Zionist Conspirator]

“Unfortunately, even conservatives are still thinking in a strait jacket. And I don’t anticipate that changing anytime soon”

Spirited: This is not surprising given that evolutionary thinking has been transforming the minds of Westerners and Americans for many long years. From cave-man movies to the GEICO cave-man commercials, to the teaching of Darwinism in universities and grade-schools, to evolution-themed science fiction, the constant implication is that life began at the bottom and has been riding an upward moving escalator from primordial matter to dinosaurs, to cave-man to man to deep space extraterrestrials.

That's all true, spirited, but the evolution business is not at all what I was referring to. I was referring to the entire pagan/secular "western" ideology, including that of the American Founding. I was referring to "freedom of religion" itself (which didn't exist in Biblical Israel). I was referring to the modern schizophrenic western mentality that pays lip service to G-d in private but worships "democracy" or "western tolerance" in public. I'm talking about a world in which people have to stop taking their religious beliefs seriously the moment they step outside their front doors.

The entire "enlightenment" project has been a disaster. There are no "rights" that don't come from G-d, including "freedom of religion." How long has it been since you read the Book of Joshua? No "bill of rights" there!

Most conservatives are simply not capable of discovering the blinders they wear because they are devoted to a false religion in which G-d makes an "offer of salvation" which the individual is free to accept or reject. In fact there is no "offer of salvation." There is only G-d A-mighty, the King of the Kings of the Kings, and His Laws which are mandatory. This worldview is so alien to the modern world that I don't think most people are capable of understanding it. Ironically, the moslems seem to come the closest, and for this reason are hated by "conservatives" who believe in "freedom of religion." In fact the only problem with the moslems is they have the wrong religion.

[tacticalogic]

To religious believers of either or both, supernatural Christian theism is as offensive, heretical and blasphemous as it was to ancient Greeks. If this was not so then nature religion Mullahs would not be persecuting, hounding and censoring all public talk about Christian theism and demanding it be strictly forced out of the public arena. Nor would they be prohibiting prayer and demanding the removal of cemetery crosses, crèches, and even the public mention of Jesus Christ.

Why limit that argument to just the physical and spiritual materialists? According to the article, any belief other than a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis is equally heretical.

Many people (including many Freepers) belive in theological evolution. The author rejects that belief out of hand as being no different that philosophical naturalism - if you aren't a YEC Creationist then you don't have any business claiming to believe in God at all, because you aren't doing it right.

Is that an idea you think we need to adopt as a matter of political activism?