tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post2679901585394667118..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Why evolutionary naturalism undermines liberal humanismVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-38390895486127506912018-06-10T23:30:47.121-07:002018-06-10T23:30:47.121-07:00on metacrock's blog dialogue with atheist on e...on metacrock's blog dialogue with atheist on evidence for immaterial existence,<br /><br /><a href="http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2018/06/dialogue-on-material-and-immaterial.html" rel="nofollow"><b>Here</b></a>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-67349838091428210552018-06-08T03:58:02.435-07:002018-06-08T03:58:02.435-07:00It's definatley connected to the one-dimension...It's definatley connected to the one-dimensional of consumer society, it's not actuate to call it postmodern it;'s not valid to say it's the result of just being irreligious.White evangelicals are now the biggest constrictors to one-dimentionality and to material attitudes to life,Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-35415671550394002962018-06-07T14:54:21.591-07:002018-06-07T14:54:21.591-07:00Quite possibly. But isn't the LH response like...Quite possibly. But isn't the LH response likely to be a shrug of the shoulders and a 'So What?' Liberal Humanism---I'm not sure what this consists of but let's assume it's roughly the world-view of most irreligious Westerners---just isn't interested in foundational questions. It's not as if the law emerges after serious and lengthy discussion within the Councils of the Church any longer. We all get a say in it. And the majority view now is not that marriage, say, is a gift of God, but rather is a gift of the state, ie, ourselves, and therefore to be bestowed equally. The idea that marriage is a tragically necessary intervention by the state to contain the chaotic force of sex and ensure the continuity of society through the children that result---essentially the Christian view minus the metaphysical trappings---seems to have been thrown out along with the metaphysics.<br /><br />Why has this happened? Partly, I suspect, because popular culture has become infected with a schizophrenic postmodernism that loves the products that scientific technology has come up with (well, maybe not the plastic bags) but rejects the limits on the malleability of the human psyche that religion recognises and science confirms. It's as if the manifest image has floated free of the scientific image.David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-32165053038438545542018-06-06T11:36:07.520-07:002018-06-06T11:36:07.520-07:00here is my defense of this moral argument against ...here is my defense of this moral argument against an atheist<br /><br />Joseph Hinman, <a href="http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-counter-apologiost-attacks-moral.html" rel="nofollow"><b>"the counter apologist attacks the moral argument,"</b></a> Metacrock's .blog (MAY 29, 2016)<br /><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-82612148250957112962018-06-06T11:30:51.190-07:002018-06-06T11:30:51.190-07:00Blogger Hugo Pelland said...
The problem with post...<br />Blogger Hugo Pelland said...<br />The problem with posts like this one, and clearly it hasn't changed in over 10 years, is that there is an implied reasoning that goes like this<br />- Because of God, society works like ABC<br />- If there were no God, society wouldn't have ABC<br />- Our society does have ABC, hence there must he a God behind it all. Or, more mildly, Atheists cannot account for ABC without God, so God exists by default.<br /><br />It's circular and shows an unfortunate lack of imagination I would say.<br /><br /><b>It's not circular its abductive,</b><br /><br /><br /> It's a denial of so many other options as to how we got our society's ABCs, like the rights to Life, Libery and the Pursuit of Happiness. Just because some great men wrote that that these were given by a Creator doesn't make it so.<br /><br /><b>It's basically Kant's moral argument</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-75849863551332038462018-06-06T04:27:42.799-07:002018-06-06T04:27:42.799-07:00I have responded to this post with a blog piece of...I have responded to this post with a blog piece of my own<br /><br /><a href="http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2018/06/filinis-famous-scene-la-dulce-vita-my.html" rel="nofollow"><b>life, liberty, and the pirsuit of what?</b></a>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-20180193328192740842018-06-05T15:16:41.208-07:002018-06-05T15:16:41.208-07:00The problem with posts like this one, and clearly ...The problem with posts like this one, and clearly it hasn't changed in over 10 years, is that there is an implied reasoning that goes like this<br />- Because of God, society works like ABC<br />- If there were no God, society wouldn't have ABC<br />- Our society does have ABC, hence there must he a God behind it all. Or, more mildly, Atheists cannot account for ABC without God, so God exists by default.<br /><br />It's circular and shows an unfortunate lack of imagination I would say. It's a denial of so many other options as to how we got our society's ABCs, like the rights to Life, Libery and the Pursuit of Happiness. Just because some great men wrote that that these were given by a Creator doesn't make it so.World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-88624160587846281302018-06-05T13:05:27.637-07:002018-06-05T13:05:27.637-07:00I think what Jefferson meant by saying all men are...I think what Jefferson meant by saying all men are created equal was that tittles are not given by God but by society.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-31525975271005823542018-06-05T05:18:42.910-07:002018-06-05T05:18:42.910-07:00Evolution doesn't make people equal, it doesn&...<i>Evolution doesn't make people equal, it doesn't endow anyone with inalienable rights, and among these are certainly not life, or liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.</i><br /><br />Lots of people think god doesn't do that either.<br /><br />We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men evolved together, that our differences are necessary for the flourishing of our species, and that promoting the life, liberty, and happiness of every individual is the best way to preserve our diversity.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-65877781459880673132018-06-05T04:11:39.057-07:002018-06-05T04:11:39.057-07:00Jefferson didn't believe all men were physical...Jefferson didn't believe all men were physically identical. He must have meant something like "all men are of equal value" or "we should seek to cooperate with all men." That's one thing.<br /><br />Remember also that Jefferson lived before Darwin published his Origin of Species, so it's not surprising that Jefferson wouldn't use our modern evolutionary terms.<br /><br />Another obvious point is that Jefferson didn't actually believe what he wrote, or at least he didn't hold it to be "inalienable" in all cases. After all, Jefferson owned slaves. And I wouldn't be surprised if Jefferson accepted capital punishment. Etc.<br /><br />Here's how an actual evolutionist might update Jefferson's language:<br /><br />"We hold these as our key values: that we should all try to cooperate for mutual benefit, that we as evolved beings strive for survival, and it is right for us to work together for our common flourishing."<br /><br />I don't think this changes the original intent at all.<br />John B. Moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00234524731241646514noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-87208180674018880402018-06-05T01:59:47.111-07:002018-06-05T01:59:47.111-07:00"We hold these truths to be self-evident, tha..."We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men evolved differently, that they are born with certain mutable characteristics, and that among these are life and the pursuit of pleasure."<br /><br />As a replacement this sux. Doesn't mention liberty, it doesn't set forth inalienable rights. That means you can't lose them this says they are changeable as they can be lost, This might as well just replace the famous passage with blank space. <br /><br />It speaks of pleasure rather than happiness,as though he admits happiness is a function of spirit not of material existence; bit why is pleasure anything? Pleasure could just be part of opponent conditioning, This implies Sknnerism, beyond freedom and dignity,Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-69753707745855343612018-06-05T01:47:46.049-07:002018-06-05T01:47:46.049-07:00Great Topic Doc. ( hope you will publish on this,T...Great Topic Doc. ( hope you will publish on this,This could be a whole book). I'll have more to post about this latter,Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.com