The title of one of Richard Dawkins’
books is entitled The Blind Watchmaker,
but its subtitle is How the Evidence of
Evolution Reveals a World Without Design. The subtitle, it seems to me,
makes a paradoxical claim. On the one hand, it maintains we ought to draw the
conclusion that the world lacks design. On the other hand, the subtitle
suggests that he has reached this conclusion through examining the evidence of
evolution, but examining the evidence is a process designed to discover the
truth. In fact, Dawkins is fond of contrasting his own methods for reaching
conclusions with methods based on faith, which to his mind involve a lack of
design. But if the world really is without design, how is this possible? Of
course, it could turn out that the paradox is resolvable. But the attempt to
ban teleology from the bioverse, but then to insist that one’s own convictions
are justified because a kind of teleological explanation can be given for these
convictions, is a fact that, at the very least stands in need of explanation.
21 comments:
Here is one of the finest lectures I have ever heard on the topic of Faith, and at its center is a discussion of the improbability of an undesigned universe. Listen to the whole thing; it's Pure Gold.
but examining the evidence is a process designed to discover the truth. In fact, Dawkins is fond of contrasting his own methods for reaching conclusions with methods based on faith, which to his mind involve a lack of design.
This is a very fundamental point.
If it were true, that in nature, there is no order toward ends, then Dawkins (presumably part of nature) could not possibly design a strategy to determine if there is order in nature or not.
What will it take for the Trump enablers to finally admit that we have a maniac as commander in chief? Are federal judges and tax breaks for the wealthy worth toying with what could end up being the biggest armed conflict since WWII?
Pompeo says we murdered Soleimani to prevent a war. Well, the last time I checked, you don't "prevent" a war by starting one, and that drone strike was an act of war.
Hitler analogies are generally considered to be off limits, but what can you do when they are the most accurate description of what is happening today? We have an insane wannabe dictator in the White House.. our White House.
For the Love of God, Trump needs to go ASAP! This is beyond "politics". They were left in the dust long ago. What we are facing now is an existential threat to humanity itself.
Will the Democrats impeach him for it?
They should.
Heck, the Republicans ought to.
I'm of mixed feelings. If Soleimani was indeed plotting attacks on Americans, then it's one of those situations where you have to wonder what he expected would happen. We aren't required to take it. Had American generals gotten killed while plotting attacks against Iranian people and assets, how outrageous would that truly be? I'm sure the right would howl in outrage because far too many think America is righteous and all must be beneath our whim, but every country has the right to protect its own from hostile forces.
Of course, we should have never been in Iraq to begin with, so that's a mess that Trump inherited from Bush. I understand the danger of ISIS, but we shouldn't even be in that area.
So again, I'm of two minds. We have the right to stop attacks against our own, but we are still an occupying force in the region. I would not call it an act of war, any more than his planned attacks against us would be, but it is a situation that could very easily escalate.
I applaud you for thinking about this event. Most people I talk to are so benumbed by the years of casual drone attacks our nation has been carrying out that they fail to see what an outrage this is. Just imagine what the US response would be if some foreign power decided to take out the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff because of something he "might" do? And let's not forget that ever since the CIA tried to kill Castro back in the 60's, assassination as a tool of foreign policy has been illegal in the USA. So to those who ask what laws Trump has broken, well.. here is one. And finally, Dick Cheney's notion of preemptive war has been decisively disproven in Iraq. Why would anyone believe it would work out better against the far larger and more powerful Iran, one of the great nations of this Earth?
Just imagine what the US response would be if some foreign power decided to take out the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff because of something he "might" do?
Exactly. And also let's not forget that the vast majority of the Iranian people viewed Soleimani very favorably. If not regarded as a hero, he was still held in high esteem. We just took him out when we could have drawn a circle of missiles all around his vehicle, with a message to Iran that whoops, we missed, but we'll be working on our aim for the next time.
The Iranian government has many problems, but the last thing we ought to do is also anger the entire population.
"we could have drawn a circle of missiles all around his vehicle"
Interesting. That's an idea very close to my own just prior to our invasion of Iraq. I proposed lining up our forces at the border and "bombarding" the country for weeks with leaflets and radio broadcasts saying we were going to move in to arrest Saddam, but would not fire the first shot. Our troops would only shoot to defend themselves, but otherwise would move in entirely peacefully.
I still think it would have worked. The general populace hated Saddam, and would have cheerfully cooperated with a UN liberation force.
It's going to be hard for Iran to start WW3 when the US troops move out of Iraq.
And let's face it.
No one here has a clue as to what the real situation is. You can read the news, but who really believes it anymore?
The Iranian government has many problems, but the last thing we ought to do is also anger the entire population.
I don't think the whole population is angry.
I know and work with a number of people from Iran. I make it a point to keep the workplace pleasant, so I rarely discuss religion or politics except to listen.
The Iranian woman I work with told me things were bad in Iran for the common folks. She said that people were stealing metal off her parent's apartment buildings to feed themselves while the mullahs were eating food flecked with gold.
So at least part of the populace doesn't like how things are being run.
Now of course this is just an antecdote, but she didn't get it from a news report. She got it from her parents who actually live there.
Yeah Iranians have plenty of reason to not like their government. That doesn't translate to having reason to like the United States, and it doesn't mean Soleimani was hated. Conservatives strongly disliked Obama and Democrats but loved General Petraeus.
But ultimately the reason I'm not too concerned about the killing is I don't trust any of the entities involved as to what actually happened or their take on what the ramifications will be. Military and intelligence will justify their actions, Trump will justify his actions, Republicans will support Trump, Democrats will condemn Trump, and you can predict how any given news outlet is spinning it by whether more conservatives or progressives watch/read. It's like that on every issue, and none have earned my trust.
The only "news outlet" I can trust completely is Holy Scripture, such as:
Too long have I had my dwelling among those who hate peace. I am for peace; but when I speak, they are for war!
(Psalm 120:6-7)
or
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.
(Matthew 5:9)
and of course
They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
(Isaiah 2:4)
But beyond "proof verses" (always a dangerous game) there is the "general sense" of Scripture as a whole: God desires peace, and war is a terrible affront to Him. At the least war is failure, and at its worst it is a great evil - sin.
But ultimately the reason I'm not too concerned about the killing is I don't trust any of the entities involved as to what actually happened or their take on what the ramifications will be.
100% agree. There is more going on than meets the eye, plus there are a dozen entities spinning the story every which way.
Remember when Trump pulled troops from Syria and the hysteria it caused? Turkey was going to kill all the Kurds and Syria was going to war with Turkey. Then within a week or so, everyone reached a peaceful agreement. I suspect that didn't happen by accident.
As far as peace goes, wouldn't it be a good thing if this death resulted in US troops leaving Iraq?
"Wouldn't it be a good thing if this death resulted in US troops leaving Iraq?"
Yes, it would be a good thing.
But two comments must be added to that statement.
1. I seriously doubt that that was an intended result of the assassination.
2. Wouldn't you agree that good ends do not justify evil means?
1. I seriously doubt that that was an intended result of the assassination.
I'm not surprised. If he admitted it was his plan all along, I'm sure you wouldn't believe him.
2. Wouldn't you agree that good ends do not justify evil means?
Put that simply, yes, I agree.
But the question that the government is asking is "Does killing a known killer before he can kill again constitute an evil?"
The legal justification is that this man was designated part of a terroist organization, just like Osama Bin Laden.
As I mentioned, I don't feel comfortable talking to the Iranian people I work with about the situation in Iran. When they have spoken to me about it, they sound like MIKE DOLATI from this interview. Basically that Iran was beautiful country that was turned miserable by the rulers.
The interview was by NPR so if there was any bias in the reporting I would have thought it would be to show that the largest Iranian community outside of Iran was angry against Trump's action. Since it doesn't, I think the sentiment is credible.
Friends of yours?
Hmm.
Ukraine keeps getting involved in every story
I wonder who was on that plane.
Post a Comment