Creationist philosophy

[Nando Ronteltap]

The reason why creationism is all important, is because creationism validates the concepts of both opinion and fact in one conceptual scheme. So that means that ALL facts about the universe, and all opinions like about beauty, are based on creationism.

Creationist philosophy is about the structure and logic of creation theory. It is the same as the religious doctrine of creationism, but without the specifics of who created what when. Those specifics are reduced to variables. That leaves only the mechanism of creation, which mechanism is choosing. Things originate by choice. Making a choice is defined as making an alternative future the present. Or it can be defined as making a possible future the present, or not.

The creationist conceptual scheme:
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / existence of which is a matter of chosen opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / existence of which is a matter of fact forced by evidence

To take human beings as an example, the human being is split in the 2 categories, body and soul. The body belongs in category 2. Meaning the body is a created chosen thing, and the existence of it is a matter of fact. The soul is in category 1. Meaning the soul chooses, it is creative, and it is a matter of chosen opinion what emotions are in the soul, or if the soul exists.

Definition of opinion:
An opinion is formed by choice and expresses what it is that makes a choice.

Definition of fact:
A fact is obtained by evidence of a creation forcing to produce a 1 to 1 corresponding model of it in the mind.

Materialism does not validate subjective opinion at all, materialism solely validates facts. This is why materialism led to social darwinism. Materialism forced people to regard the worth of people as a factual issue, because materialism only validates fact.

Postmodernism asserts that opinions are inherent in statements of fact. That leaves fact and opinion in a mess, but it gets away from the coldhearted attitudes promoted by materialism.

Only with creationism can you have both purely emotional opinions, and perfectly hard scientific fact besides. Creationism provides a constitution for the mind.

 

[HitchSlap]

Creationism is silly. Unless you're a christian/muslim who thinks their eternal destiny depends on it, there's no reason to take it's claims seriously (think flat earth here).

ToE is one the most robust scientific theories out there. We have 160 years of evidence, and there are no competing hypotheses. It's time to accept it and move on.

 

[mark kennedy]

Creationism like it's intellectual cousin intelligent design are natural theology. The basic epistimology affirms that naturalistic reasoning confors to the biblical doctrine and theistic inferences of the two approaches respectively. The two are neither inductive science nor systematic theology. Creationism is based on essential doctrine while intelligent design makes inferences based on common logic. They are experiments in naturalistic reasoning that effect neither natural science nor sacred theology. The church has dabbled in this approaxh down through the ages, never given full weight to its logic or conclusions drawn from this exercise in evidential apologetics.

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

You haven't actually read the post. I mean....

Among other things creationism prevents social darwinism, the anti-thesis of science. I see deeply disturbing farreaching patterns of irrationality associated to evolution theory, with for example free will denial, and objectifying of emotions.

And in my experience it is just the greatest to have my purely emotional opinions on one side, and hard scientific fact on the other side. Like I said creationism provides a robust constitution to my mind.

 

[mark kennedy]

You haven't actually read the post. I mean....

Among other things creationism prevents social darwinism, the anti-thesis of science. I see deeply disturbing farreaching patterns of irrationality associated to evolution theory, with for example free will denial, and objectifying of emotions.

And in my experience it is just the greatest to have my purely emotional opinions on one side, and hard scientific fact on the other side. Like I said creationism provides a robust constitution to my mind.

A little know fun fact for you, the Scopes monkey trial was specifically over social darwinism and had little to do with creationism (which didn't really exist at tge time) or Darwinisn natural selection. The whole trial was over political theory, not science or religion.

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

I know it. Bryan warned of how social darwinism played out in Germany, prior to WW2. He warned about it after WW1 where social darwinism already had a major role, but still a significant warning.

 

[SkyWriting]

The reason why creationism is all important, is because creationism validates the concepts of both opinion and fact in one conceptual scheme. So that means that ALL facts about the universe, and all opinions like about beauty, are based on creationism.

Creationist philosophy is about the structure and logic of creation theory. It is the same as the religious doctrine of creationism, but without the specifics of who created what when. Those specifics are reduced to variables. That leaves only the mechanism of creation, which mechanism is choosing. Things originate by choice. Making a choice is defined as making an alternative future the present. Or it can be defined as making a possible future the present, or not.

The creationist conceptual scheme:
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / existence of which is a matter of chosen opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / existence of which is a matter of fact forced by evidence

To take human beings as an example, the human being is split in the 2 categories, body and soul. The body belongs in category 2. Meaning the body is a created chosen thing, and the existence of it is a matter of fact. The soul is in category 1. Meaning the soul chooses, it creates, and it is a matter of chosen opinion what emotions are in the soul, or if the soul exists.

Definition of opinion:
An opinion is formed by choice and expresses what it is that makes a choice.

Definition of fact:
A fact is obtained by evidence of a creation forcing to produce a 1 to 1 corresponding model of it in the mind.

Materialism does not validate subjective opinion at all, materialism solely validates facts. This is why materialism led to social darwinism. Materialism forced people to regard the worth of people as a factual issue, because materialism only validates fact.

Postmodernism asserts that opinions are inherent in statements of fact. That leaves fact and opinion in a mess, but it gets away from the coldhearted attitudes promoted by materialism.

Only with creationism can you have both purely emotional opinions, and perfectly hard scientific fact besides. Creationism provides a constitution for the mind. View attachment 254020

Reading scripture literally with the plainest language as the priority as Henry Morris taught me in his many books, resulted in me seeing things Henry never talked about. The plain language of how ancient the earth is.

Deuteronomy 33:15
with the best of the ancient mountains and the bounty of the everlasting hills,

Genesis 49:25-26
25 by the God of your father who helps you, and by the Almighty who blesses you, with blessings of the heavens above, with blessings of the depths below, with blessings of the breasts and womb. 26The blessings of your father have surpassed the blessings of the ancient mountains and the bounty of the everlasting hills. May they rest on the head of Joseph, on the brow of the prince of his brothers.

 

[SkyWriting]

You haven't actually read the post. I mean....

Among other things creationism prevents social darwinism, the anti-thesis of science. I see deeply disturbing farreaching patterns of irrationality associated to evolution theory, with for example free will denial, and objectifying of emotions.

And in my experience it is just the greatest to have my purely emotional opinions on one side, and hard scientific fact on the other side. Like I said creationism provides a robust constitution to my mind.

Yes, it does, for a while. Read about Creation week and you'll not read about anything described that is one week old. Not one thing. Even Adam is ready for a wife.

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

Yes, it does, for a while. Read about Creation week and you'll not read about anything described that is one week old. Not one thing. Even Adam is ready for a wife.

This is not what I am talking about. Evolution theory is destroying people's whole concept of free will, and the concept of subjective opinion. I see loads of people on the internet who deny free will is real, and who assert they can measure emotions in the brain as fact. People hate subjective opinion. People want everything to be factual, controllable, certain. It's a weakness people have. Evolution theory exploits that weakness. Evolution theory is literally driving people mad.

 

[HitchSlap]

This is not what I am talking about. Evolution theory is destroying people's whole concept of free will, and the concept of subjective opinion. I see loads of people on the internet who deny free will is real, and who assert they can measure emotions in the brain as fact. People hate subjective opinion. People want everything to be factual, controllable, certain. It's a weakness people have. Evolution theory exploits that weakness. Evolution theory is literally driving people mad.

This is quite possibly the funniest post I’ve ever read on CF!

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

This is quite possibly the funniest post I’ve ever read on CF!

It is actually true. All over the internet, and in the highest echelons of academics, they are denying free will. The consequences of that can only be bad. I think it may be one of the main factors in the incredibly sour politics in the USA. When you start messing around with fundamental things, you have a potential for huge consequences, because everything is built on the fundamentals.

 

[HitchSlap]

It is actually true. All over the internet, and in the highest echelons of academics, they are denying free will. The consequences of that can only be bad. I think it may be one of the main factors in the incredibly sour politics in the USA. When you start messing around with fundamental things, you have a potential for huge consequences, because everything is built on the fundamentals.

Preach it brother!

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

Preach it brother!

I try reasoning with you. We all basically use the same common discourse. And in our common discourse we have subjective words, and talk of making choices. Our common discourse is based on creationist logic.

Now what's going to happen when someone intellectually denies creationism is true?

Then they have a significant difference between their intellectual persona and their common discourse persona. That means they say one thing is true in common discourse, and intellectually they say something else is true. It's going to make duplicity? identity problems? lack of emotional credibility? a split personality? a coldhearted calculating persona at the intellectual level?

What's a politician going to do about freedom of opinion, if he or she doesn't even accept free will is real? What is going to happen with racism? Ideas about people being determined by biology, they are going to have more credence when free will is denied?

 

[SkyWriting]

This is not what I am talking about. Evolution theory is destroying people's whole concept of free will, and the concept of subjective opinion. I see loads of people on the internet who deny free will is real, and who assert they can measure emotions in the brain as fact. People hate subjective opinion. People want everything to be factual, controllable, certain. It's a weakness people have. Evolution theory exploits that weakness. Evolution theory is literally driving people mad.

It has zero effect on God's chosen people. Why would you think man's ideas could alter God's plan? The idea that creationism or evolution theory could change God's plans is madness.

 

[mark kennedy]

This is not what I am talking about. Evolution theory is destroying people's whole concept of free will, and the concept of subjective opinion. I see loads of people on the internet who deny free will is real, and who assert they can measure emotions in the brain as fact. People hate subjective opinion. People want everything to be factual, controllable, certain. It's a weakness people have. Evolution theory exploits that weakness. Evolution theory is literally driving people mad.

I hate to have to do this but evolution isn't a theory, it's a phenomenon in nature. What you are describing, at least I think, is Darwinism, aka universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means. Now back to the regularly scheduled discussion.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It is actually true. All over the internet, and in the highest echelons of academics, they are denying free will.

There has been an active philosophical debate on free will since the earliest recorded history. It's "all over the internet" because we have the internet and more people have discovered the arguments.

Much of it is a question of exactly what people mean by free will - e.g. the folk-idea of free will (e.g. dualist libertarian) as neither deterministic nor random seems incoherent, so what, if anything, should replace it? The solution is usually either compatibilism or nothing.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What's a politician going to do about freedom of opinion, if he or she doesn't even accept free will is real?

Individuals can have opinions whether or not they have free will. Without free will, opinions are the result of the influence of an individual's life experiences on the results of their genetic heritage.

What is going to happen with racism? Ideas about people being determined by biology, they are going to have more credence when free will is denied?

What makes you think racism is connected with free will?

Not quite sure what you mean by "Ideas about people being determined by biology", it's rather ambiguous...

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

There has been an active philosophical debate on free will since the earliest recorded history. It's "all over the internet" because we have the internet and more people have discovered the arguments.

Much of it is a question of exactly what people mean by free will - e.g. the folk-idea of free will (e.g. dualist libertarian) as neither deterministic nor random seems incoherent, so what, if anything, should replace it? The solution is usually either compatibilism or nothing.

A subjective opinion, like to say something is beautiful, is formed by choice and expresses what it is that makes a choice. Throw out free will, then you throw out the concept of subjective opinion too, because subjectivity solely operates by free will. Then you get social darwinism, where what is good and bad is stated as scientific fact, because you just threw out the concept of subjective opinion.

And really the only reason people have problems with the concept of free will, is because they have problems with subjectivity. Subjectivity is the target to be destroyed therefore the concept of free will must be removed or changed. So people can wallow in feelings of factual certitude about what is good and bad.

Obviously evolution theory works as a catalyst to destroy subjectivity in general. As shown by nazi and communist assertions of scientific certitude in matters of opinion, in relation to evolution theory.

Look at evolution theory, the evolutionists use all kinds of subjective terminology like differential reproductive "success", "beneficial" mutations, "struggle for" survival. And then this theory is in opposition to creationism, while subjective opinion is an inherently creationist concept. The logical conclusion on account of evolution theory can only be that what is good and bad is a matter of scientific fact.

 

[Speedwell]

A subjective opinion, like to say something is beautiful, is formed by choice and expresses what it is that makes a choice. Throw out free will, then you throw out the concept of subjective opinion too, because subjectivity solely operates by free will. Then you get social darwinism, where what is good and bad is stated as scientific fact, because you just threw out the concept of subjective opinion.

And really the only reason people have problems with the concept of free will, is because they have problems with subjectivity. Subjectivity is the target to be destroyed therefore the concept of free will must be removed or changed. So people can wallow in feelings of factual certitude about what is good and bad.

Obviously evolution theory works as a catalyst to destroy subjectivity in general. As shown by nazi and communist assertions of scientific certitude in matters of opinion, in relation to evolution theory.

Then why did the Soviet Union outlaw Darwinism?

Look at evolution theory, the evolutionists use all kinds of subjective terminology like differential reproductive "success", "beneficial" mutations, "struggle for" survival. And then this theory is in opposition to creationism, while subjective opinion is an inherently creationist concept. The logical conclusion on account of evolution theory can only be that what is good and bad is a matter of scientific fact.

If you are going to perpetrate an offensive falsehood like that, and base the conclusion on "logic," the least you can do is to show your work.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

A subjective opinion, like to say something is beautiful, is formed by choice and expresses what it is that makes a choice. Throw out free will, then you throw out the concept of subjective opinion too, because subjectivity solely operates by free will. Then you get social darwinism, where what is good and bad is stated as scientific fact, because you just threw out the concept of subjective opinion.

And really the only reason people have problems with the concept of free will, is because they have problems with subjectivity. Subjectivity is the target to be destroyed therefore the concept of free will must be removed or changed. So people can wallow in feelings of factual certitude about what is good and bad.

It usually helps to have a coherent definition of free will in this kind of discussion, but I think you have the relationship between free will and subjectivity confused. Subjectivity is the individual or internal perspective - in a Nagelian sense, what it is like to be a particular individual (you).

Inevitably that will give you the feeling of having & exercising free will, because you have the subjective experience of evaluating the options, according to your own criteria (preferences, desires, rules, objectives, etc.), and selecting the option that best satisfies those criteria at the time. IOW you can make choices according to your will.

But you will have this sensation of making a free choice whether you have (whatever you mean by) free will or not. If the criteria for your choices are purely deterministic, i.e. the result of the effects that your life experiences have had on you, and the evaluation process you use is purely deterministic, you will still have the experience of making a choice according to your own (deterministic) criteria. As Isaac Bashevis Singer said, with heavy irony, "We must believe in free will - we have no other choice".

For example, people from different cultures see different body shapes as beautiful - it's certainly their subjective opinion, but there's little doubt that their subjective opinion is influenced by their social and cultural experiences - it doesn't come from nowhere.

Schopenhauer said, "A man can do what he wants, but not want what he wants", meaning that you are free to do what you desire, but you are not free to choose your desires (because they're ultimately based on feelings). Of course, that's a simplification - you can change what you do so as to change unwanted feelings in particular directions, but why would you do that? - because of how you feel about those unwanted feelings.

Obviously evolution theory works as a catalyst to destroy subjectivity in general. As shown by nazi and communist assertions of scientific certitude in matters of opinion, in relation to evolution theory.

No, that's entirely mistaken. The Nietzschean social Darwinism ('will to power') espoused by the Nazis was a crude misunderstanding or misinterpretation of Darwinian evolutionary principles, especially the idea of 'fitness'.

And Darwinian evolution is simply an explanation (subsequently considerably extended) for the diversity of life; it has nothing to say about subjectivity.

... subjective opinion is an inherently creationist concept.

Can you explain the reasoning behind this conclusion? Subjective opinion is behind a great deal of evolutionary behaviour, for example, sexual selection.

The logical conclusion on account of evolution theory can only be that what is good and bad is a matter of scientific fact.

No; evolution theory describes a natural process; it takes no moral position and makes no value judgements. Of course, that doesn't stop us taking moral positions and making value judgements.

And it's easy enough to make the case that, broadly, what we consider to be good and bad has its origins in our evolutionary heritage, and the idea that this predisposition is an influence on our subjective view of the world gives the lie to the idea that evolution destroys subjectivity.