Rejection of evolution correlates with racism

[2PhiloVoid]

It might help if you addressed what I posted.

Killing every man, woman and child on the planet has been described as a necessary evil. I personally can't think of a more horrendous act than literally drowning everyone. But you can describe it as you wish.

Is it the same kind of "evil" that takes place when an f5 tornado rampages through a neighborhood or a category 5 hurricane (typhoon it's called, I think, in your parts) wipes a populated island off the map? Surely, my comparison here is a red-herring, right? You're intending to make some metaphysical insinuations that you haven't established verbally yet for your targeted referent, right?

Just keep in mind that I typically keep a firm watch on the semantic back door and I intend to keep intruders out.

If you truly thought that God had commanded you to commit an equally monstrous act (and this is obviously a hypothetical - although many people have been convinced He has spoken and do commit horrendous acts) then the point I am making is that you would have no reason not to carry it out.

I'll write that again, because it is the central point...you would have no reason not to carry it out. That is, there is nothing that you wouldn't feel justified in doing.

Y'know, I must have slept during the time in which it was decided by the World that making a moot point somehow truly means something where Christian Theology is concerned. And your point, my dear sir, is a moot one if all things (and all philosophical contexts) are to be considered.

 

[SelfSim]

I won't disagree with you on that. It's a feature of his personality.

But demand from a fundamental YEC if he or she would change her mind if the evidence justified it and they would emphatically say no. There are even examples of people who have stated quite baldly that even if the evidence for an old world was undeniable, they would still deny it).

Demand the same from Dawkins and his answer would be an emphatic yes. And you'd tet the same answer from any scientist (assuming that they're not also a YEC).

Yep .. and then there is an 'other' here, who does pirouettes and contortions in developing their own literal biblical interpretation, which culminates in a so-called 'prime directive' of absolutely never accepting anything which contradicts the Biblical scriptures. (That poster may be a one-off in personality though .. just like Dawkins is .. but I doubt Dawkins would accept some command from science to drown every human alive ..)

 

[SelfSim]

Is it the same kind of "evil" that takes place when an f5 tornado rampages through a neighborhood or a category 5 hurricane (typhoon it's called, I think, in your parts) wipes a populated island off the map? Surely, my comparison here is a red-herring, right? You're intending to make some metaphysical insinuations that you haven't established verbally yet for your targeted referent, right?

Just keep in mind that I typically keep a firm watch on the semantic back door and I intend to keep intruders out.

Y'know, I must have slept during the time in which it was decided by the World that making a moot point somehow truly means something where Christian Theology is concerned. And your point, my dear sir, is a moot one if all things (and all philosophical contexts) are to be considered.

This line of discussion you are having with @Bradskii, is sort of like the gun lobby's principle for not restricting the distribution of guns.
The principles behind the respective arguments are important and I don't think either should be trivialised (under the guise of arguing that a principle is just some kind of moot point)?

 

[Bradskii]

Y'know, I must have slept during the time in which it was decided by the World that making a moot point somehow truly means something where Christian Theology is concerned. And your point, my dear sir, is a moot one if all things (and all philosophical contexts) are to be considered.

The act is carried out personally. We aren't discussing natural disasters. It would be a command to you for you to carry out. Which is not a moot point. It's a hypothetical one. And one you spend an awful lot of words not addressing.

The term 'all hat and no cattle' springs to mind.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I started this sub-thread speaking only of the evidence *against* the Noachian ominicide, but you insist that this be discussed on moral grounds. So be it. You get your wish.

Is it the same kind of "evil" that takes place when an f5 tornado rampages through a neighborhood or a category 5 hurricane (typhoon it's called, I think, in your parts) wipes a populated island off the map? Surely, my comparison here is a red-herring, right? You're intending to make some metaphysical insinuations that you haven't established verbally yet for your targeted referent, right?

EF5 tornadoes and category 5 hurricanes are natural, meteorological phenomena. There is no thinking agent or moral agency involved.

The Noachian deluge is claimed to be the action of a thinking being (Yahweh).

The two are not comparable. All are horrible, but only the one that is an action of an agent invites any moral evaluation.

Since the genetic evidence indicates that the mass death didn't happen (as written) and the geological evidence indicates the global flood didn't happen, the moral consideration of the event is hypothetical. It is even more so for me, since I don't think the alleged actor in the story even exists any discussion of the morality is even more so hypothetical. Not that hypothetical moral actions aren't interesting to discuss. Moral dilemmas in explicit fiction are often include for the explicit purpose of invoking discussion. If that's why this story was included, then discussing the moral implications (rather than the factual claims) is the point of it.

Just keep in mind that I typically keep a firm watch on the semantic back door and I intend to keep intruders out.

Philosophical or theological mind tricks?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The act is carried out personally. We aren't discussing natural disasters. It would be a command to you for you to carry out. Which is not a moot point. It's a hypothetical one. And one you spend an awful lot of words not addressing.

The term 'all hat and no cattle' springs to mind.

You don't seem to be getting my thrust here, Bradskii. I understand all too well WHAT it is you're asking me to do. I also understand the purpose and the nature of the hypothetical you want me to engage with. I just don't assume that a hypothetical excercise which isn't actually digging into any meta-ethical substance (as is the case when hypothesizing about a Fictional Flood, however prized it may be) is of any real practical application on an existential level. And this becomes even more of a disincentive for me when I see people casually disregard the Hermeneutical structures of the very Fictions (or non-fictions) that they choose to alight upon.

If you want me to engage a 'hypothetical' analogous to the kind you're attempting to proffer here, then maybe focus on some realworld myths or narrative mis-construals that Neo-Nazis or racist, hyper-fundamentalist, flag waiving pseudo-Christians would use to wash the minds of their followers.

THEN, you'd have something for me to look at, just as surely as you would if you had shown me a book with a narrative about The Holocaust (ala Anne Frank or Corrie Ten Boom, maybe?). Yes, these kinds of moral concerns are the things I care about.

But for you to center upon hypothetical psycho-social ramifications emanating from your personally felt moral concerns, stimulated as they are by a text that you don't believe has any real substance to it whatsoever, seems to me like a bit of ... Sartrean bad faith on your part.

No, let's stick to real-world exprerience for the well from which we'll draw hypothetical moral excercises. Neither of us wants to drink any kool-aid of any variety; no, you and I want real, clean, earth drawn water.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I started this sub-thread speaking only of the evidence *against* the Noachian ominicide, but you insist that this be discussed on moral grounds. So be it. You get your wish.

No, I never really get my wish.

EF5 tornadoes and category 5 hurricanes are natural, meteorological phenomena. There is no thinking agent or moral agency involved.

The Noachian deluge is claimed to be the action of a thinking being (Yahweh).

The two are not comparable. All are horrible, but only the one that is an action of an agent invites any moral evaluation.

Since the genetic evidence indicates that the mass death didn't happen (as written) and the geological evidence indicates the global flood didn't happen, the moral consideration of the event is hypothetical. It is even more so for me, since I don't think the alleged actor in the story even exists any discussion of the morality is even more so hypothetical. Not that hypothetical moral actions aren't interesting to discuss. Moral dilemmas in explicit fiction are often include for the explicit purpose of invoking discussion. If that's why this story was included, then discussing the moral implications (rather than the factual claims) is the point of it.

Y'know, I've never been a big fan of the "Philosophy and ......." series of books. But I guess things have come along far enough now that rather than a Philosophy and Star Wars, Philosophy and Batman, Philosophy of LOTR, Philosophy of Harry Potter, etc., etc., they can do a "Philosophy and The Bible."

Then again, I never did get much from all of those children's books they used to read to us in pre-school, either. I must have a problem ...

Philosophical or theological mind tricks?

He, he, he......eh!

 

[Bradskii]

You don't seem to be getting my thrust here, Bradskii. I understand all too well WHAT it is you're asking me to do. I also understand the purpose and the nature of the hypothetical you want me to engage with. I just don't assume that a hypothetical excercise which isn't actually digging into any meta-ethical substance (as is the case when hypothesizing about a Fictional Flood, however prized it may be) is of any real practical application on an existential level. And this becomes even more of a disincentive for me when I see people casually disregard the Hermeneutical structures of the very Fictions (or non-fictions) that they choose to alight upon.

If you want me to engage a 'hypothetical' analogous to the kind you're attempting to proffer here, then maybe focus on some realworld myths or narrative mis-construals that Neo-Nazis or racist, hyper-fundamentalist, flag waiving pseudo-Christians would use to wash the minds of their followers.

THEN, you'd have something for me to look at, just as surely as you would if you had shown me a book with a narrative about The Holocaust (ala Anne Frank or Corrie Ten Boom, maybe?). Yes, these kinds of moral concerns are the things I care about.

But for you to center upon hypothetical psycho-social ramifications emanating from your personally felt moral concerns, stimulated as they are by a text that you don't believe has any real substance to it whatsoever, seems to me like a bit of ... Sartrean bad faith on your part.

No, let's stick to real-world exprerience for the well from which we'll draw hypothetical moral excercises. Neither of us wants to drink any kool-aid of any variety; no, you and I want real, clean, earth drawn water.

Might be a good idea to dial back the pseudo intellectual tone.

That said, if drowning a planet would be morally acceptable to you (note the tense), then the point I am making is that nothing could be morally unacceptable to you. You can choose any real act that has been committed or is likely to be committed. If you are sure that God commands it, then you will consider it justified.

The vast majority of people would think that if they thought God had commanded them to kill all the kids in a local primary school, they would automatically reject the very idea that it could have actually been God as He would never ask anyone to commit such an horrendous act.

You have excused yourself from that option. Because you think His killing every child on the planet would be justified. Whats a few dozen kids compared to that?

 

[Astrid]

Might be a good idea to dial back the pseudo intellectual tone.

It fools nobody.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Let's not forget that evolution is an explanation. Facts are collected and a theory is proposed to explain the evidence. People can deny that the evidence is correct or they can accept the evidence and deny the explanation.

In regard to the former, that's quite difficult. Because we use the scientific method to verify the evidence, and the scientific method is self refuting. Notwithstanding that there are very many ways to justify accepting any given evidence and as they correlate one would need to reject each method used.

In regard go the latter, if you reject one explanation then you need to propose an alternative. An alternative that explains all the available evidence.

I have no problem with the evidence. The interpretation, the philosophical speculation surrounding the origin of the evidence is another matter

'science[] such wholesale returns of conjecture, out of such a trifling investment of fact': Mark Twain

'God made it all in six days' or any similar explanation doesn't make the cut. One can't substitute a scientific theory with a theological one.

I'm not a creationist, far less a young earth creationist, but that explanation does provide more explanatory power than 'pure blind chance'

I'm well aware that it is a forbidden explanation under the confines of methodological naturalism. But we can also choose to remove the arbitrary restrictions and simply follow the scientific method wherever it leads.

Theists need no such arbitrary restrictions on naturalism- if you have a naturalistic explanation, let it compete on it's own merits- I have no problem with that.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Might be a good idea to dial back the pseudo intellectual tone.

No, instead I think I'll just charge this long-distance call to you.

That said, if drowning a planet would be morally acceptable to you (note the tense), then the point I am making is that nothing could be morally unacceptable to you. You can choose any real act that has been committed or is likely to be committed. If you are sure that God commands it, then you will consider it justified.

Leave the 'you' out of it. The point you're trying to make isn't the one you think you're making, especially when you haven't grounded and identified your ethical viewpoint for the public to consider. You're just sliding it under the table.

The fact is, your form of 'hypothetically speaking' here is a speech-act where the hypothetical has about as much purchase power as a candy coin. [But, but, but...what if we lived in a world where we could actually spend a candy coin???]

Who CARES??!!!!

And unlike you, I don't disconnect the Hermeneutics at hand from the conjecture.

You do; I don't.

The REAL question is: would the biblical God ever, now or henceforth, be suspected of commanding any Christian, anywhere, to attempt **cough** 'omnicide' ? (Answer: Anyone? Anyone? Anyone? )

We're not concerned with whether or not the biblical flood 'causes' a radical Muslim or homegrown pseudo-Christian Waco-doodle to commit an actual atrocity. We're ONLY concerned [or should only be] with whether or not the supposed meta-ethical values of a transcendent, holy God expressed solely in Biblical terms are valid and expected to be expressed and acted upon. Since your hypothetical clearly circumnavigates these three criteria, in my estiamation, you're blowing smoke.

So, your hypothetical holds no water for me. You can keep hitting your red button in insistant, repetitive fashion all you want, but your repetition doesn't a moral substance make ex-nihilo.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So you're looking for gold. A large number of nuggets were found in a nearby tributary stream today, which is fed from a stream source which starts from your claim lease property. Where are you going to look for gold tomorrow? Science has shown to be the most consistently reliable basis for deciding where to look for that gold.

Well I'd hope I don't run into a sign saying 'mining prohibited in this area'!

The scientific method works best when you do not impose arbitrary restrictions based on desired outcomes.

Knowing how to distill beliefs from the science, (which George Washington probably didn't), represents objective wisdom .. which is what education aims at passing on.

Well Washington was correct, blood letting was not a good treatment for a sore throat.

Many skeptics at the time were using objective wisdom- they empirically observed that people who treated colds with some rest and chicken soup tended to recover in a couple of days, while those undergoing phlebotomy tended to drop dead.

They were unrestricted by academic consensus to make this observation.

 

[Bradskii]

I have no problem with the evidence. The interpretation, the philosophical speculation surrounding the origin of the evidence is another matter.

Evolution is not an interpretation. It's an explanation.

That said, if someone finds a reptillian fossil that has a spike on its head, one could interpret that as being for defence, for digging up grubs, for killing prey or just as a sexual marker. That would be interpretation. Maybe all those 'interpretations' could be wrong. But you'd not need to change the ToE because of it.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Evolution is not an interpretation. It's an explanation.

That said, if someone finds a reptillian fossil that has a spike on its head, one could interpret that as being for defence, for digging up grubs, for killing prey or just as a sexual marker. That would be interpretation. Maybe all those 'interpretations' could be wrong. But you'd not need to change the ToE because of it.

You might interpret the spike as evidence of something being originated by random chance, or something else.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It fools nobody.

Neither does communism.

 

[Bradskii]

We're not concerned with whether or not the biblical flood 'causes' a radical Muslim or homegrown pseudo-Christian Waco-doodle to commit an actual atrocity.

Correct. The flood itself (actual or not) doesn't cause people to fly planes into buildings. But the mindset that accepts that God could (or did - the truth of the matter doesn't matter) drown a planet load of people doesn't allow them to reject any other mass killing by God because it's unthinkably immoral.

So...if someone truly believes that God has commanded them to kill, that person has lost the option to deny the act on the grounds that it is immoral.

And as I said upstream, your continued lack of any response to this specific point leaves me with no other option than to assume that you likewise do not have that option.

We're now past the point of arguing about it (you don't seem to want to and I'll waste no more time doing so). So you're left with denying it if you think you should.

 

[Bradskii]

You might interpret the spike as evidence of something being originated by random chance, or something else.

Then again, you wouldn't need to change the ToE because the ToE is not a random process.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Correct. The flood itself (actual or not) doesn't cause people to fly planes into buildings. But the mindset that accepts that God could (or did - the truth of the matter doesn't matter) drown a planet load of people doesn't allow them to reject any other mass killing by God because it's unthinkably immoral.

So...if someone truly believes that God has commanded them to kill, that person has lost the option to deny the act on the grounds that it is immoral.

And as I said upstream, your continued lack of any response to this specific point leaves me with no other option than to assume that you likewise do not have that option.

We're now past the point of arguing about it (you don't seem to want to and I'll waste no more time doing so). So you're left with denying it if you think you should.

Nah. I really don't care what assumptions about me you're willing to asperse.

And in this case I neither need confirm nor deny anything moral or otherwise about an abstracted god concept fit only for certain philosophers.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Then again, you wouldn't need to change the ToE because the ToE is not a random process.

You would need to alter ToE's claim that everything is originated by random chance

 

[Mr Laurier]

No, it's not a lack of "education." In Christianity, it does not require "education." Plenty of people are "educated" in the bible and yet have been and are racist.

It requires the Holy Spirit.

And please explain how I, lacking any "Holy Spirit", am able to recognize the sheer absurdity of the idea of human "races".