There is a popular argument that says that because man evolved, his thoughts do not guarantee truth, and that his inclinations to like or agree with an argument reflect what is best for his survival, on average, and that any argument’s agreement with truth is coincidental.
Haldane and Lewis writings on this topic are concise and clear.
Lewis further questions why we as humans are not rightly stunned that we can communicate at all with another person if all that goes on in our brains is random motions of atoms and molecules. And if we can, why should we believe any of it?
Contra Alan Moore in Watchmen, there are no miracles in Thermodynamics, any more than there are in Quantum or Classical Mechanics. You have to look outside Science for miracles.
Evolutionists continually encountering walls in the way of their theory pretend that there are windows through them, then conclude the sky is made of bricks.
"Species change from less complexly ordered to more complexly ordered" - LOL, what?
"This happens because of the natural selection of random mutations for advantage" - Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! <deep breath> Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
"We have 130 million year-old mosquitoes perfectly preserved in amber.
"This slice of reality is a perfect proof of evolution!
"Examining these specimens, we see that mosquitoes of 130 million years ago were.....uh, well, uh....EXACTLY LIKE MODERN MOSQUITOES!"
Can't think of a better example of reality refuting macro-evolution. Mosquitoes did NOT randomly morph into frogs, or beetles, or monkeys, or anything else. And there's no amber-trapped proto/missing link mosquitoes from 260 million years ago. Mosquitoes appear in amber at some point in time, and remain the same, right down to today.
Atoms in brains power the mind to make these deductions/inferences/logical conclusions, and the soul is okay with that.
So how long are you allowed to change until it's macro evolution and what causes are permitted? Let's saw between having a common ancestor with a dog? Or are you more f a, a black bear can be a brown bear but not be related to a wolverine? Is a spider allowed to be related to a worm or does it only go down as far as scorpion as far as family lineage? Me, I'm a "There's no common ancestor between a fly and a bee. Nonsense."
I like to think the brain evolved naturally, but in its form lies something predetermined. Like an altar, it is god's intention that 'that' arrangement of matter is what imbues holiness.
Mass Effect had a nice side dialog. Can't find the quote for the life of me, but one of the scientist types explained his belief. He knew there to be an original creator, whose signature was left in many subtle places. Like how the whorl on a specific kind of crab's shell perfectly matched the pattern of the Galaxy's arms. He'd seen too much to assume it all happenstance.
This put me in mind of a podcast interview with John Staddon on his book "Science in an Age of Unreason."
He describes the "scientific imperialism" which has gripped us since the Enlightenment: the idea that science can guide us in everything, everything can be decided by science, disregarding the Enlightenment's very own Hume who drew a distinction between facts and values. Science is about facts, and facts don't tell you WHAT TO DO with those facts; you need a value system that comes from somewhere else. Science tells you how to get to places, not which places to go to. Sounds reasonable.
Staddon also described "the naturalistic fallacy", which says that "what has evolved naturally is good."
I have since wondered if the whole practice of evolutionary biology is a form of scholarly tribalism, or tribal scholarship, to explain why it is good that the cleverest men come out on top regardless of the means to their end.
I have lately become partial to the following idea, necessarily only roughly sketched out here.
The Original Differentiation of all of reality is the division into two disjoint domains: the pattern/energy/matter domain and the domain of volition. Think of it as “thing” and “value” if you will. What unifies the two is mind (or “meaning” in the second formulation). Thus, mind is a necessary component of the cosmos, and isn’t derived from matter but from the tension with volitional reality — from the inevitable force of cosmic unity.
Think of science, philosophy and religion: Science concerns itself with the observation; philosophy with the observation of the observation; religion with the observer.
There is a lot more to it, but I have to go to work. My apologies for the hit-and-run; I hope you have as much fun considering the implications as I have had over the years.
Isn't this where Descartes was headed with "Cogito, ergo sum"?
I saw a meme a few weeks ago of a picture of Descartes with his eyes all bugged out. The tagline at the bottom said "Descartes, when he finds out that people who don't think also exist".
"... as soon as thought dries up, it is replaced by words." Quoted from Nadezhda Mandelstam (Hope Abandoned). Western thought has been a dry well from way before some scientists came up with the idea of evolution and others with arguments against it. Let's face it, science is a cul-de-sac with a bag of dead souls for gangsters.
Near Death Experiences offer evidence that we continue on after the body perishes, as Haldane believes. Fr. Robert Spitzer has covered this topic extensively:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jV3d88jOxZo
When I used to check out HuffPo in its heyday fifteen years ago, it was strange to see liberals/atheists attack these claims with foaming-at-the-mouth vehemence.
I like to think the brain evolved naturally, but in its form lies something predetermined. Like an altar, it is god's intention that 'that' arrangement of matter is what imbues holiness.
Mass Effect had a nice side dialog. Can't find the quote for the life of me, but one of the scientist types explained his belief. He knew there to be an original creator, whose signature was left in many subtle places. Like how the whorl on a specific kind of crab's shell perfectly matched the pattern of the Galaxy's arms. He'd seen too much to assume it all happenstance.
Such a lovely essay, thanks for this. What confounds me about these kind of arguments is that they were the arguments that gave rise to Western Civilization itself. How do we know what's true? How should we find truth? Truth, it turns out, is always contingent on better information and ideas coming along. Reason isn't perfect but it aims us in the direction of truth as long as whatever we think is 'true' can be questioned.
It seems to me much of the dialog about this starts from a position of ignorance, as though we haven't developed an entire society dedicated to 'the Age of Reason', lol. Like it's such a stupid argument in the sense that it's already occurred. That you wake and think this is a new idea that must be examined and is such a hole in our reasoning IDs you as an uneducated imbecile who should not be listened to but rather shamed and sent back to do some reading...
And what next? If we have accepted the existence of reason, if we have concluded that its existence cannot be adequately explained by purely naturalistic causes, then all that is left to us is a cause beyond nature—something supernatural. But though we may be able to make inferences about the supernatural, and we can certainly engage in speculation, we cannot perceive it by any natural means. We cannot control or command it: If, by some specific arcane ritual, I can summon a djinn, observe it, and compel it to reveal its secrets, then the djinn is not a truly supernatural being, but simply a part of our own natural cosmos. We cannot attain any real knowledge about the supernatural by our own power. Our only hope of ever knowing the truth is that the supernatural is capable of communicating with us and is willing to reveal truth about itself. The only worthwhile effort toward gaining knowledge of the supernatural, then, is to examine the accounts of those who have claimed to have had such communications. The task is not as daunting as many make it out to be. The spirits of animistic religions are, like the aforementioned djinn, simply a part of the natural order. The little g gods of polytheistic religions are hardly better: Zeus was born to the earth itself; Odin's father was licked free from the primordial ice by a primordial cow. The origin of reason cannot be attributed to such as these. The practice of religion for the common Hindu and Buddhist differs little from polytheism. Their clerics have a higher conception of God, true, but they will freely admit their theology is the product of human imagination and not of revelation. Ahura Mazda is said to be all-knowing, but not omnipotent. He may have created beings capable of reason, but he is not the father of reason itself. Among all claimed divine revelation known to us, only the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who revealed himself to Moses as "I AM THAT I AM" sufficiently transcends the natural realm that he created to be considered a candidate for the creator of reason. All who seek truth should begin their search there.
". Our only hope of ever knowing the truth is that the supernatural is capable of communicating with us and is willing to reveal truth about itself. The only worthwhile effort toward gaining knowledge of the supernatural, then, is to examine the accounts of those who have claimed to have had such communications. The task is not as daunting as many make it out to be."
Your inference doesn't make sense. I see no reason to infer from :not being able to make sense of the world through purely naturalistic systems" implies you know what pure system is involved. In fact, it's quite interesting our creator would expect us to forego the use of the capacities we have been given.
Yes, it is almost as if in order to grasp the "Other" it takes some level of faith that it exists....and that we are never to have actual "proof". Hmmm.......
Haldane and Lewis writings on this topic are concise and clear.
Lewis further questions why we as humans are not rightly stunned that we can communicate at all with another person if all that goes on in our brains is random motions of atoms and molecules. And if we can, why should we believe any of it?
Contra Alan Moore in Watchmen, there are no miracles in Thermodynamics, any more than there are in Quantum or Classical Mechanics. You have to look outside Science for miracles.
Materialists hardest hit.
Evolutionists continually encountering walls in the way of their theory pretend that there are windows through them, then conclude the sky is made of bricks.
Theory is not truth.
There are no shortage of SCIENTISTS who would condemn you for such heresy.
I'm ready for my blindfold and cigarette!
"Species change over time" - OK
"Species change from less complexly ordered to more complexly ordered" - LOL, what?
"This happens because of the natural selection of random mutations for advantage" - Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! <deep breath> Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Kool-aid drinking evolution cultist:
"Yeah..laugh now!
"We have proof!
"We have 130 million year-old mosquitoes perfectly preserved in amber.
"This slice of reality is a perfect proof of evolution!
"Examining these specimens, we see that mosquitoes of 130 million years ago were.....uh, well, uh....EXACTLY LIKE MODERN MOSQUITOES!"
Can't think of a better example of reality refuting macro-evolution. Mosquitoes did NOT randomly morph into frogs, or beetles, or monkeys, or anything else. And there's no amber-trapped proto/missing link mosquitoes from 260 million years ago. Mosquitoes appear in amber at some point in time, and remain the same, right down to today.
Atoms in brains power the mind to make these deductions/inferences/logical conclusions, and the soul is okay with that.
QED.
The funny thing about Jurassic Park is that the whole mosquito amber thing is completely outdated/unnecessary since we have dinosaur soft tissue now.
So how long are you allowed to change until it's macro evolution and what causes are permitted? Let's saw between having a common ancestor with a dog? Or are you more f a, a black bear can be a brown bear but not be related to a wolverine? Is a spider allowed to be related to a worm or does it only go down as far as scorpion as far as family lineage? Me, I'm a "There's no common ancestor between a fly and a bee. Nonsense."
"The Second Law of Thermodynamics is only a theory."
"Oh, wait ... !"
I like to think the brain evolved naturally, but in its form lies something predetermined. Like an altar, it is god's intention that 'that' arrangement of matter is what imbues holiness.
Mass Effect had a nice side dialog. Can't find the quote for the life of me, but one of the scientist types explained his belief. He knew there to be an original creator, whose signature was left in many subtle places. Like how the whorl on a specific kind of crab's shell perfectly matched the pattern of the Galaxy's arms. He'd seen too much to assume it all happenstance.
This put me in mind of a podcast interview with John Staddon on his book "Science in an Age of Unreason."
He describes the "scientific imperialism" which has gripped us since the Enlightenment: the idea that science can guide us in everything, everything can be decided by science, disregarding the Enlightenment's very own Hume who drew a distinction between facts and values. Science is about facts, and facts don't tell you WHAT TO DO with those facts; you need a value system that comes from somewhere else. Science tells you how to get to places, not which places to go to. Sounds reasonable.
Staddon also described "the naturalistic fallacy", which says that "what has evolved naturally is good."
I have since wondered if the whole practice of evolutionary biology is a form of scholarly tribalism, or tribal scholarship, to explain why it is good that the cleverest men come out on top regardless of the means to their end.
I have lately become partial to the following idea, necessarily only roughly sketched out here.
The Original Differentiation of all of reality is the division into two disjoint domains: the pattern/energy/matter domain and the domain of volition. Think of it as “thing” and “value” if you will. What unifies the two is mind (or “meaning” in the second formulation). Thus, mind is a necessary component of the cosmos, and isn’t derived from matter but from the tension with volitional reality — from the inevitable force of cosmic unity.
Think of science, philosophy and religion: Science concerns itself with the observation; philosophy with the observation of the observation; religion with the observer.
There is a lot more to it, but I have to go to work. My apologies for the hit-and-run; I hope you have as much fun considering the implications as I have had over the years.
Isn't this where Descartes was headed with "Cogito, ergo sum"?
I saw a meme a few weeks ago of a picture of Descartes with his eyes all bugged out. The tagline at the bottom said "Descartes, when he finds out that people who don't think also exist".
"... as soon as thought dries up, it is replaced by words." Quoted from Nadezhda Mandelstam (Hope Abandoned). Western thought has been a dry well from way before some scientists came up with the idea of evolution and others with arguments against it. Let's face it, science is a cul-de-sac with a bag of dead souls for gangsters.
Thank you for "liking" this post Mr. Briggs.
Among scientists you are a glorious exception.
It doesn't pay as well as being a Regime academic, but it's a lot more fun.
Darwinism delenda est.
It's washing itself out of the gene pool.
Darwinism deleta est sed pauci cognoverunt.
Near Death Experiences offer evidence that we continue on after the body perishes, as Haldane believes. Fr. Robert Spitzer has covered this topic extensively:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jV3d88jOxZo
Here's an excellent book about people's NDEs: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0615226752?psc=1&ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_product_details
When I used to check out HuffPo in its heyday fifteen years ago, it was strange to see liberals/atheists attack these claims with foaming-at-the-mouth vehemence.
I like to think the brain evolved naturally, but in its form lies something predetermined. Like an altar, it is god's intention that 'that' arrangement of matter is what imbues holiness.
Mass Effect had a nice side dialog. Can't find the quote for the life of me, but one of the scientist types explained his belief. He knew there to be an original creator, whose signature was left in many subtle places. Like how the whorl on a specific kind of crab's shell perfectly matched the pattern of the Galaxy's arms. He'd seen too much to assume it all happenstance.
Such a lovely essay, thanks for this. What confounds me about these kind of arguments is that they were the arguments that gave rise to Western Civilization itself. How do we know what's true? How should we find truth? Truth, it turns out, is always contingent on better information and ideas coming along. Reason isn't perfect but it aims us in the direction of truth as long as whatever we think is 'true' can be questioned.
It seems to me much of the dialog about this starts from a position of ignorance, as though we haven't developed an entire society dedicated to 'the Age of Reason', lol. Like it's such a stupid argument in the sense that it's already occurred. That you wake and think this is a new idea that must be examined and is such a hole in our reasoning IDs you as an uneducated imbecile who should not be listened to but rather shamed and sent back to do some reading...
An exquisite takedown of a vane 'expert' world that has no clothes. To quote a great book: ' it is confusion.'
Truth - that which exists but we can never know. How do we know truth exists? Well, ah ...
And what next? If we have accepted the existence of reason, if we have concluded that its existence cannot be adequately explained by purely naturalistic causes, then all that is left to us is a cause beyond nature—something supernatural. But though we may be able to make inferences about the supernatural, and we can certainly engage in speculation, we cannot perceive it by any natural means. We cannot control or command it: If, by some specific arcane ritual, I can summon a djinn, observe it, and compel it to reveal its secrets, then the djinn is not a truly supernatural being, but simply a part of our own natural cosmos. We cannot attain any real knowledge about the supernatural by our own power. Our only hope of ever knowing the truth is that the supernatural is capable of communicating with us and is willing to reveal truth about itself. The only worthwhile effort toward gaining knowledge of the supernatural, then, is to examine the accounts of those who have claimed to have had such communications. The task is not as daunting as many make it out to be. The spirits of animistic religions are, like the aforementioned djinn, simply a part of the natural order. The little g gods of polytheistic religions are hardly better: Zeus was born to the earth itself; Odin's father was licked free from the primordial ice by a primordial cow. The origin of reason cannot be attributed to such as these. The practice of religion for the common Hindu and Buddhist differs little from polytheism. Their clerics have a higher conception of God, true, but they will freely admit their theology is the product of human imagination and not of revelation. Ahura Mazda is said to be all-knowing, but not omnipotent. He may have created beings capable of reason, but he is not the father of reason itself. Among all claimed divine revelation known to us, only the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who revealed himself to Moses as "I AM THAT I AM" sufficiently transcends the natural realm that he created to be considered a candidate for the creator of reason. All who seek truth should begin their search there.
". Our only hope of ever knowing the truth is that the supernatural is capable of communicating with us and is willing to reveal truth about itself. The only worthwhile effort toward gaining knowledge of the supernatural, then, is to examine the accounts of those who have claimed to have had such communications. The task is not as daunting as many make it out to be."
Your inference doesn't make sense. I see no reason to infer from :not being able to make sense of the world through purely naturalistic systems" implies you know what pure system is involved. In fact, it's quite interesting our creator would expect us to forego the use of the capacities we have been given.
Yes, it is almost as if in order to grasp the "Other" it takes some level of faith that it exists....and that we are never to have actual "proof". Hmmm.......
Is it me, or is this writing style difficult to read? Incomplete sentences.