September 2017 – Page 5 – TrueFreeThinker

Secular beliefs

Sam Harris and Jerry Coyne on free will, part 6 of 9

We continue considering that Sam Harris and Jerry Coyne deny free will: find the entire series here.

Note Sam Harris’ (literally) birdbrained statement:
Of course, many scientists…For instance, the biologist Martin Heisenberg has observed that some fundamental processes in the brain, like the opening and closing of ion channels and the release of synaptic vesicles, occur at random, and cannot, therefore, be determined by environmental stimuli.
Thus, much of our behavior can be considered “self-generated,” and therein, he imagines, lies a basis for free will. But “self-generated” in this sense means only that these events originate in the brain. The same can be said for the brain states of a chicken.
Well, one flew over the cuckoo’s nest…or, make that two as Richard Dawkins also compared the human brain that can compute 20 million billion calculations per second to bird’s brains (see Altruism or Allfalseism) as he compares human altruism to a bird mistakenly feeding a chick which is not its own.
In any regard, the issue is that one scientist interprets chemical reactions one way and another interprets it another way. But Harris verified the point we have been making which is that all his supposed evidence only amounts to “that these events originate in the brain”—period.

sam20harris2c20atheism2c20true20freethinker-4794005

Sam Harris writes that “‘self-generated’ mental events would amount to utter madness” because:
Imagine what your life would be like if all your actions, intentions, beliefs, and desires were “self-generated”…You would live as one blown about by an internal wind. Actions, intentions, beliefs, and desires can only exist in a system that is significantly constrained by patterns of behavior and the laws of stimulus-response. This may, perhaps, touch upon the different between what we may call our free willed reasoned thoughts on the one hand and our instinctive reactions on the other. When we touch something dangerously hot we do not, at least appear to, go through a thought process of examining the sensation, concluding that it could result in physical damage, determining that such damage is deleterious and finally decide to act in a manner which results in pulling away from the source of heat. No, rather we instantly recoil “without thinking about it.” And although this is our experience all along there is a part of us that does ponder such things even if not at that moment.

But, in any regard the rapidity of our reflexes should not be absolutised to the point of “thinking” that we are 100% instinct (or, thermodynamics) driven beings. On the other hand, that we make free will choices should not be absolutised to the point that we cannot recognize reflex based instincts. We should recognize that we are, perhaps, a dichotomy, a duality and that the results of a reasoned series of thoughts are not of the same sort, kind, type or category as a reflex.

Now, to another Harrisian Atheist worldview based fallacious correlation:
Even if our brains were quantum computers, the brains of chimps, dogs, and mice would be quantum computers as well. (I don’t know of anyone who believes that these animals have free will.)…But most neuroscientists do not view the brain as a quantum computer. Again, even if we knew that human consciousness depended upon quantum processes, it is pure hand-waving to suggest that quantum indeterminacy renders the concept of free will scientifically intelligible. Human, chimps, dogs, mice, birds, it’s all the same to an Atheist, “A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy”—Ingrid Newkirk (of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals-PETA). From his Darwinist view it is all the same and yet, perhaps animals do have free will. If they do not, it does not mean that we humans do not.

Actually, the one thing that definitely separates us from the animals is fashion faux pas.

Succinctly, his point is that “Even if our brains were quantum computers…quantum effects are unlikely to be biologically salient…it is pure hand-waving to suggest that quantum indeterminacy renders the concept of free will scientifically intelligible.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.

Twitter: #SamHarris, #JerryCoyne, #Atheism
Facebook: #SamHarris, #JerryCoyne, #Atheism

Neuroscience

Rush Holt

Jacques Ellul’s advice to Dawkins, Hawking, Harris, deGrasse Tyson & Nye

French theologian and philosopher Jacques Ellul wrote something that is quite applicable to many self-appointed purveyors (and perverters) of science.

In his 1963 AD The Technological Society, he noted:

Does not the scientist dominate our techniques? Is he not an intellectual inclined and fit to put basic questions? Unfortunately, we are obliged to re-examine our hopes here when we look at things as they are. We see quickly enough that the scientist is as specialized as the technician, as incapable of general ideas, and as much out of commission as the philosopher. Think of the scientists who, on one tack or another, have addressed themselves to the technical phenomenon: Einstein, Oppenheimer, Carrel.

It is only too clear that the ideas these gentlemen have advanced in the sphere of the philosophic or the spiritual are vague, superficial and contradictory. They really ought to stick to warnings and proclamations, for as soon as they assay anything else, the other scientists and the technicians rightly refuse to take them seriously, and they even run the risk of losing their reputations as scientists.

jacques20ellul-5573194

He was speaking to his context of “technical phenomenon,” referenced Albert Einstein, J. Robert Oppenheimer and Alexis Carrel and warns against them speaking, as I will put it, outside of their field and the warning is also for us to not accept their pontifications regarding issue outside of their field. This is because while “these gentlemen have advanced in the sphere” of their special training, “They really ought to stick to” that which they know and not expand into that which they do not but presume to know or to otherwise be able to tackle simply due to their erudition.

If and when they speak on subjects about which they are not truly prepared to speak they “run the risk of losing their reputations as scientists” since people will begin to wonder whether they really are erudite in those areas in which they are supposed to be such.

Now, in our day there is no shortage of scientists who, on one tack or another, have addressed themselves to any number of issues about which they know nothing more than the average person: Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Sam Harris, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye and, did I mention Richard Dawkins?

Not surprisingly, these few examples are all Atheists and all step well outside of their fields in order to speak on anything that strikes their fancy Richard Dawkins is a biologist who regularly addresses issues of theology and ethics. Stephen Hawking is a theoretical physicist who has been known to addresses issues of theology and philosophy. Sam Harris is a neuro-scientist who regularly addresses issues of theology and ethics. Neil deGrasse Tyson is an astrophysicist who regularly addresses issues of theology and ethics. Bill Nye is well, he once pretended to be a scientist on a children’s TV show and who regularly addresses issues of theology and science.

Those who truly are skeptical, and not pseudo-skeptics who are in reality merely cynics, have indeed begun losing faith, as it were, in these personages even when they do speak within their own field. They risk of losing their reputations as scientists because it is so evident that the manner in which they tend to deal with issues in general is to manipulate evidence, interpret evidence via worldview philosophies, have a goal of protecting preferred theories, etc., etc., etc.

Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Sam Harris, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye and, did I mention Richard Dawkins would do well to heed Jacques Ellul for their own sake. Of course, they will not because they also think that they far too knowledgeable in general to refuse to speak on any topic.

wife

Now, for something a little different: amongst my various designed for shirts, posters, stickers, etc. I have produced a bumper sticker that states, “I’d Race You, But My Wife Won’t Let Me.”

A great sticker for letting em’ know that, by golly, you are ready to get’er’done but….your wife won’t let you race ;o(

Of course, I probably need to make another version that is in keeping with our poop-culture and have it stated, “I’d Race You, But My Non-Gender Specific Temporary Sex Partner De Jour Won’t Let Me.”

PLoS Me

Atheism and rape: Atheist victimizes rape victim

Conservapedia reported:

TheAmazingAtheist is YouTube‘s most subscribed to YouTube channel produced by an atheist and as of February of 2012 it had over 280,000 subscribers.

In 2012, he viciously told a rape victim “you deserved it” and told her that her rapist “deserved a medal”.[from a comment posted to Reddit]

He also told her that she should try to relive the rape in her mind.

Some people could not be made fun of even if one sought to accomplish that very task. Some people are caricatures, in this case a deleterious combination of a stereotypical belligerent atheist and anonymous internet personality. A frightening consideration is that it may very well be this personage’s worldview which leads him to such depths of malice.

Indeed, “TheAmazingAtheist” has written:

I think we should give the guy who raped you a medal. I hope you ******* drown in rape semen, you ugly, mean-spirited cow. [from a comment posted to Reddit]

He also told another woman:

You’re lucky it wasn’t me. I’d have busted your ******* nose and raped you. [from his book “Scumbag: Musings of a Subhuman,” p. 93]

And has also offered a graphic descriptions of how he would rape a rape victim again.

This is in keeping with his modis operandi which, sadly, is a manner whereby some people get and keep a lot of attention. Of course, it is pathetic that some people are so very desperate for attention that they seek it regardless of whether it is good, bad or ugly.

This particular atheist is the organizer of a group, aptly, called The Atheist Scum United and refers to himself as “God of the Godless,” “subhuman,” and “scumbag.” Could not have said it better ourselves.

But the belligerence does not stop at his victimization of rape victims but he also takes aim at the dead. He has referred to people who committed suicide due to bullying as having been “weak.”

What such a person needs, truly needs, is love and prayer because they are obviously hurting very, very badly.

For more related info see my section on rape.

Ecce Homo's Commandments

The New Atheists claim that atheism is holier than theism. Dan Barker, of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, declared that “Darwin has bequeathed what is good.” Being hard a work concocting a neo non-religious religion Professor Richard Dawkins has thus bequeathed “The New Ten Commandments.”1

Behold, The New Ten Commandments, of Which There Are Fifteen:

1. Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you.2. In all things, strive to cause no harm.3. Treat your fellow human beings, your fellow living things, and the world in general with love, honesty, faithfulness and respect.4. Do not overlook evil or shrink from administering justice, but always be ready to forgive wrongdoing freely admitted and honestly regretted.5. Live life with a sense of joy and wonder.6. Always seek to be learning something new.7. Test all things; always check your ideas against the facts, and be ready to discard even a cherished belief if it does not conform to them.8. Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from dissent; always respect the right of others to disagree with you.9. Form independent opinions on the basis of your own reason and experience; do not allow yourself to be led blindly by others.10. Question everything.11. Always devise your rules as if you didn’t know whether you were going be at the top or the bottom of the pecking order.12. Enjoy your own sex life (so long as it damages nobody else) and leave others to enjoy theirs in private whatever their inclinations, which are none of your business.13. Do not discriminate or oppress on the basis of sex, race or (as far as possible) species.14. Do not indoctrinate your children. Teach them how to think for themselves, how to evaluate evidence, and how to disagree with you.

15. Value the future on a timescale longer than your own.

Numbers 1-10 were copied and pasted by Richard Dawkins from a random website. Number 11 is what Richard Dawkins imagines John Rawls would have said if he had been asked to make a statement on this matter. Numbers 12-15 are Richard Dawkins’ own invention. What Richard Dawkins did is type “New Ten Commandments” into an internet search engine, copied the first thing he saw, and purposefully looked no further (the very definition of modern day skepticism, by the way). He then imagined the 11th and concocted the last four. But why did he do this?

“The whole point is that it is the sort of list that any ordinary, decent person today would come up with. Not everybody would home in on exactly the same list of ten.”2

In keeping with the new anthro-commandments, we will now test and question them since they appear to be in serious need of commentary, interpretation and elucidation. Interestingly enough, as outdated and irrelevant as some New Atheists think the Bible’s commandments to be A. J. Jacobs, editor at large for Esquire, published a book entitled “The Year of Living Biblically.” Jacobs, who is an agnostic, set out to live according to biblical precepts for a year. Some of the results are very interesting:

“His biggest challenges? ‘That’d be no coveting, no lying, no gossiping. They’re little sins, but they’re killers. My year made me realize just how many of these sins I committed every day. And refraining from them for a year was really hard but completely transforming. Biggest lesson? ‘Your behavior shapes your beliefs. If you act like a good person, you eventually become a better person. I wasn’t allowed to gossip, so eventually I started to have fewer petty thoughts to gossip about. I had to help the less fortunate, so I started to become less self-absorbed. I am not Gandhi or Angelina Jolie, but I made some progress.”3

Considering Each In Turn:

1. Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you.

Considering that atheists are forced by their amoral worldviews to borrow morality from theistic systems, it is not in the least bit surprising that the first new commandment is a dyslexic version of an old one. Known as “The Golden Rule” this first anthro-commandment is most readily recognizable as being derived from the Bible.

“whatever you desire that men should do to you, do even so to them (Matthew 7:12).”as you desire that men should do to you, you do also to them likewise” (Luke 6:31).

The anthro version merely requires not doing something while the Biblical versions are proactive and call us to do: we are to actively treat people well and in doing so we will also not treat them badly. Some have pointed out that the golden rule does not originate from the Bible but can be found in Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism, etc. Yet, some questions ought to be asked about these other occurrences such as:How do we know that Zoroaster, Krishna, Confucius, Lao Tzu or Siddhartha Gautama even existed?When were such things spoken by them?What is the time of this event to the time of the writing?Who wrote it?What is the time of the writing to the time of the earliest manuscript?How many manuscripts do we have?How do the compare?Why should we believe that they accurately reflect what was spoken?Etc., etc., etc.These are questions that modern-day-pseudo-skeptical-New-Atheist would never even imagine asking.

But, if they did state such things why should this not be so? After all the Bible tells us that God has written His law in our minds and hearts (Jeremiah 31:33 and Romans 2:15).Interestingly enough the original author of the first ten, “The New Ten Commandments” made the following comment,

“The first thing to notice about this list is that there are no ‘Thou shalt nots’. That time-worn phrase is too dogmatic, too authoritarian; it conveys all too well the idea of a stark list of laws chiseled in stone.”4

Oddly enough we only have to read as far as the first one to find a “Do not do” statement. I do not wish to get sidetracked into the whole issue of semantics but “Do not do” is merely updated English for “Thou shalt not.”

2. In all things, strive to cause no harm.

This statement appears to be derivative from a lineage dating back to Aleister Crowley, the most infamous occultist of the twentieth century, who stated, “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.” The Wiccans seem to have attempted to subdue the statement in their Rede which states, “An Ye Harm None, Do What Ye Will.” Richard Dawkins seems to have taken one step back since he does not state “cause no harm” but “strive to cause no harm.” Give it the ‘ol college try chaps.
But what does it mean to “harm”? The answer is not as simple as it may seem. We learn an important lesson here which is that the very moment that someone asks “What does that mean?” behold, an interpretation has been born. And so the new ten commandments will have to, by necessity, grow by the addition of interpretations and commentaries. The Bible states, “If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men” (Romans 12:18).

3. Treat your fellow human beings, your fellow living things, and the world in general with love, honesty, faithfulness and respect.

This is certainly a commandment that we ought to request that Richard Dawkins model for us considering that he is famously, or infamously, voluptuously belligerent towards his fellow human beings-where’s the love? The Bible states:

“You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I [am] the LORD” (Leviticus 19:18). “‘Honor your father and [your] mother,’ and, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself'” (Matthew 19:19). “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:39). “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Mark 12:31). “For the commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’ ‘You shall not covet,’ and if [there is] any other commandment, are [all] summed up in this saying, namely, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself'” (Romans 13:9). “For all the law is fulfilled in one word, [even] in this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself'” (Galatians 5:14).

“If you really fulfill [the] royal law according to the Scripture, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself,’ you do well” (James 2:8).

4. Do not overlook evil or shrink from administering justice, but always be ready to forgive wrongdoing freely admitted and honestly regretted.

In other words act just like the Bible states:

“Then Peter came to Him and said, ‘Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times?’ Jesus said to him, ‘I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven'” (Matthew 18:21-22 ).
“And when they had come to the place called Calvary, there they crucified Him, and the criminals, one on the right hand and the other on the left. Then Jesus said, ‘Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do'” (Luke 23:33-34).

5. Live life with a sense of joy and wonder. And6. Always seek to be learning something new.

These are pretty straight forward although #5 is a bit too ethereal for me except to say that it is commanding us to enjoy life-done! I generally state “Learn something new every other day-take a day off.” But seriously, generally it would be difficult to find anyone anywhere who does not always seek to learn something new whether it is reading a newspaper, having a conversation or studying a new subject-“knowledge shall increase” (Daniel 12:4).

7. Test all things; always check your ideas against the facts, and be ready to discard even a cherished belief if it does not conform to them.

Someone calling themselves “Liberal Eagle” posted a fascinating comment to this commandment in a post entitled “We’re smarter than God” the Eagle wrote,

“This one wins the award for most diametric opposition to Yahweh’s whole ‘believe with no evidence, or I’ll let Satan torture you for eternity’ thing.”

Certainly, one is tempted to state something to the likes of “How could someone compress so many fallacies into one sentence?” Yet, it seems immediately noteworthy to point out that the very verbiage “Test all things” is a direct quote from the Bible, “Test all things and hold fast to that which is good” (1st Thessalonians 5:21). The Eagle may also be interested in learning the following verse, “‘Come now, and let us reason together,’ Says the LORD” (Isaiah 1:18).

8. Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from dissent; always respect the right of others to disagree with you.

The Bible praises the Bereans who would not simply believe but researched whether what they were being taught was true:

“Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so” (Acts 11:10-11).

It is hard to believe that Richard Dawkins reproduced this one since he is a consistent breaker of this commandment. Please pardon our lengthy circumlocution but a few rejoinders come to mind. A creationist group called Answers in Genesis interviewed Richard Dawkins in 1997, eventually this interview was included in a video entitled “From a Frog to a Prince” Much controversy has ensued form this event-Richard Dawkins’ point of view can be found here and Answers in Genesis‘ here. For the moment, let us grant Richard Dawkins’ retelling as it appears in ch. 2, essay 3 of his book of essays entitled “A Devil’s Chaplain.” In part he wrote:

“In September 1997, I allowed an Australian film crew into my house in Oxford without realizing that their purpose was creationist propaganda…they issued a truculent challenge…only a creationist would ask…it was the point I tumbled to the fact that I been duped into granting an interview to creationists – a thing I normally don’t do, for good reasons. In my anger I refused to discuss the question further, and told them to stop the camera. However, I eventually withdrew my peremptory termination of the interview, because they pleaded with me that they had come all the way from Australia specifically to interview me.”

Clearly, censorship and cutting off dissent are Richard Dawkins’ modis operandi. But he did claim to have “for good reasons.” Before getting to those reasons, perhaps he should have edited the commandment to read, “Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from dissent, unless you have a good reason for doing so” (read the qualifier as “A self-serving and convenient reason”) in which case the commandment is null and void.
But what are those good reasons? Richard Dawkins has answered that question in, Why I Won’t Debate Creationists. In this article he encourages all practitioners of “real science,” those who have “a passionate conviction that such wonders [the wonders of the natural world] deserve nothing less than a purely natural explanation.” I must admit that I am not quite sure what passion and conviction have to do with science. The long and short of Richard Dawkins’ reason is encapsulated in his following remark, “Look at me, I’m having a debate with one of the big boys. Doesn’t that just prove that creationism is being taken seriously in the universities?”
Incidentally, he was specifically referring to Philip Johnson who is not a creationist (surely such factual accuracy is beyond Richard Dawkins’ concerns although they did share some correspondence in which Philip Johnson virtually begged Richard Dawkins to fulfill his duties as Professor of the Public Understanding of Science).
Referring to himself and Steven J. Gould reference was made to “our refusal to engage in public debates with creationists,” and they seek to encourage others to censor and cut off dissent, “we don’t do debates with creationists, and encouraging other scientists to refuse for the same reason,” they “encourage others to refuse all debating invitations from pseudoscientists avid for publicity.” It may be of interest to refer to the 1986 Oxford Union Debate between Richard Dawkins, John Maynard Smith, A. E. Wilder-Smith, and Edgar Andrews (the audio of which is found on Richard Dawkins’ web site. Again, much controversy has resulted from the debate and its mysterious outcome (some background can be found here and here).
That some have made likewise statement and yet, proceeded to debate, notwithstanding. What Richard Dawkins, et al, want is for judges who are trained in law to decide what is and is not valid scientific pronouncements. Or they may opt for written debates, perhaps in biased peer-reviewed journals. But we digress.

9. Form independent opinions on the basis of your own reason and experience; do not allow yourself to be led blindly by others.

One can only wonder if we are being asked to blindly follow this commandment. Consider the following scenario: what would happen if you form independent opinions on the basis of your own reason and experience while not allowing yourself to be led blindly by others but you end up formulating beliefs with which Richard Dawkins disagrees? As we know very well, Richard Dawkins will take it upon himself to break his very own commandment number 3 and besmirch you and what you believe. The apostle Peter stated, “we did not follow cunningly devised fables” (2nd Peter 1:16). See our essay The Apostle Thomas: Patron Saint of Scientists? where I discuss Richard Dawkins’ erroneous presumption that all of the apostles, except for Thomas, relied on blind faith for their belief in the resurrection.
The Bible makes the following reference to Dr. Luke’s research methodology:

“Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed” (Luke 1:1-4).

10. Question everything.

Indeed, and don’t forget to question the commandment to question everything (see Acts 17:11 for this advise 2,000 years ago).

11. Always devise your rules as if you didn’t know whether you were going be at the top or the bottom of the pecking order.

This one is very humane and expresses the Bible’s view of fairness in treatment, law and empathy:

“You shall neither mistreat a stranger nor oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Exodus 22:21). “Also you shall not oppress a stranger, for you know the heart of a stranger, because you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Exodus 23:9).
The LORD “administers justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the stranger, giving him food and clothing. Therefore love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Deuteronomy 10:18-19).

12. Enjoy your own sex life (so long as it damages nobody else) and leave others to enjoy theirs in private whatever their inclinations, which are none of your business.

Here Richard Dawkins runs headlong in the fallacy of presuming that sex is a private act between people who have consented. This is a fallacy because even if it does take place in private and those engaged in the act did consent, the results of the copulation or fornication rarely (if ever) remain a private matter between the consenters.

It appears that we again ought to request an extended explanation of what “damages” means. Just as with the term “harm” in #2, this commandment will have to grow by the addition of interpretations and commentaries.

Does sex between a 65 year old and a 12 year old constitute damage? Ah yes, the issue is really consent. Two (or more) people can engage in any sexual act as long as they consent. But surely, a 12 year old could verbalize some form of consent. How would Richard Dawkins gage the viability of the child’s consent? What about bestiality? How will Richard Dawkins gage the viability of the animal’s consent? Moreover, when two (or more) people consent to engage in any sexual act that they wish the consequences of their actions have a very high potential of finding its way outside of the consenters. How is that? Further examples are that sexual copulation or fornication results in personal pleasure indeed but what else? It can lead to the birth of children or the abortion of children or the adoption of children. A child may be born to parents, or a single mother, who consider it to be a mistake, a mere accidental biological byproduct.

Is it not damaging to have only one parent because the other one disappeared after copulating or fornicating?Is it not damaging to have even two parents whose only relation was a one night stand which forced an innocent child to live out of a suitcase as they are caught between two adults in enmity with each other?Is it not damaging to be brutally aborted?Is it not damaging to be put up for adoption?

Is it not damaging when, as the January 29, 2009 AD Washington Post reported, President Obama’s stimulus package includes millions of tax payer dollars which went towards dealing with sexually transmitted diseases? Thus, money is being taken out of my wallet and away from my provision for my family in order to provide for people who thought that they were consenting to a private act-private no more.

Lastly, we should ask it is truly humane and none of our business to simply turn a blind eye to consensual sexual practices that are sure signs of psychological problems.See my upcoming essay “Too Sexy for My Theology? On the New Atheist Obsession with Sex” for more on this issue.

13. Do not discriminate or oppress on the basis of sex, race or (as far as possible) species.

The Bible beautifully expresses this sentiment:

“And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth” (Acts 17:26).
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).

The Bible teaches that all of humanity are related, having been derived from Adam and Eve.As far as the reference to species it should be mentioned that Richard Dawkins literally takes this “as far as possible”:

“if late-aborted embryos with nervous systems suffer – though all suffering is deplorable – it is not because they are human that they suffer. There is no general reason to suppose that human embryos at any stage suffer more than cow or sheep embryos at the same developmental stage.”5

This is certainly as far as possible since all suffering is deplorable-the suffering of a beautiful, healthy, innocent and defenseless human baby who is brutally murdered is on the same level as that of a cow or sheep embryo (see my essay On Abortion, Tadpoles, Rape, Cows, Murder and Sheep).

14. Do not indoctrinate your children. Teach them how to think for themselves, how to evaluate evidence, and how to disagree with you.

Would it be simply capricious to state that you should only indoctrinate your children to think for themselves, evaluate evidence, and disagree with you? On a serious note, I have written on this issue at length in my essay Daniel Dennett’s One Way Street of Censorship (Or: On the Hoodwinkification of Children).

15. Value the future on a timescale longer than your own.

Fair enough, clean up after yourself.

In Conclusion

Simply stated, Richard Dawkins had stated that the whole exercise in producing the new ten commandments, of which there are fifteen, was that “it is the sort of list that any ordinary, decent person today would come up with.”6 Yes, and who ever said that they could not?However, it is of the utmost importance to point out that the Biblical ten commandments have been a guide to human civilization for millennia, they have had cultural norms based upon then, they have guided lives, they have been the foundation upon which countries are built.

On the other hand, the new ten/fifteen commandments are nothing but words on a page and the very foundation upon which they are based is belittlement, belligerence and besmirchment of the original Judeo-Christian Biblical ten commandments.

After having bequeathed the new ten/fifteen commandments let us see just how Richard Dawkins deals with moral issues:

“There is no logical connection between what is and what ought. Now, if you then ask me where I get my ‘ought’ statements from, that’s a more difficult question. Firstly, I don’t feel so strongly about them. If I say something is wrong, like killing people, I don’t find that nearly such a defensible statement as ‘I am a distant cousin of an orangutan’. The second of those statements is true, I can tell you why it’s true, I can bore you to death telling you why it’s true. It’s definitely true. The statement ‘killing people is wrong’, to me, is not of that character. I would be quite open to persuasion that killing people is right in some circumstances.”7

“[Nick Pollard: ] Suppose some lads break into an old man’s house and kill him. Suppose they say: “Well, we accept the evolutionist worldview. He was old and sick, and he didn’t contribute anything to society.” How would you show them that what they had done was wrong?

[Richard Dawkins: ] If somebody used my views to justify a completely self – centred lifestyle, which involved trampling all over other people in any way they chose roughly what, I suppose, at a sociological level social Darwinists did – I think I would be fairly hard put to it to argue on purely intellectual grounds.I think it would be more: ‘This is not a society in which I wish to live. Without having a rational reason for it necessarily, I’m going to do whatever I can to stop you doing this.’ I couldn’t, ultimately, argue intellectually against somebody who did something I found obnoxious. I think I could finally only say, ‘Well, in this society you can’t get away with it’ and call the police.

I realise this is very weak, and I’ve said I don’t feel equipped to produce moral arguments in the way I feel equipped to produce arguments of a cosmological and biological kind. But I still think it’s a separate issue from beliefs in cosmic truths.”8

[Justin Brierley (JB): ] “If we had evolved into a society where rape was considered fine, would that mean that rape is fine?”

[Richard Dawkins (RD): ] I, I wouldn’t, I don’t want to answer that question. It, it, it’s enough for me to say that we live in a society where it’s not considered fine. We live in a society where uhm, selfishness, where failure to pay your debts, failure to reciprocate favors is, is, is regarded as [I could not understand this word, perhaps it was a Britishism]. That is the society in which we live. I’m very glad, that’s a value judgment, I’m very glad that I live in such a society.

[(JB): ] When you make a value judgment don’t you immediately step yourself outside of this evolutionary process and say that the reason this is good is that it’s good. And you don’t have any way to stand on that statement.

[(RD): ] My value judgment itself could come from my evolutionary past.

[(JB): ] So therefore it’s just as random in a sense as any product of evolution.

[(RD): ] You could say that, it doesn’t in any case, nothing about it makes it more probable that there is anything supernatural.

[(JB): ] Ultimately, your belief that rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact that we’ve evolved five fingers rather than six.

[(RD): ] You could say that, yeah.9

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.

Nephilim in The Book of Adam and Eve, also called The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan, 2 of 2

Herein, I conclude my consideration of A. C. Malan, trans., The Book of Adam and Eve, also called The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan, Book III, chap IV (brackets in original) which dates to circa the 6th century AD.

Next, the author argues for the Sethite view of the sons of God or rather, the author asserts it and does so based on un-evidenced and vague generalizations.
We are told that apparently all of the children of Seth “dwelt on the mountain” and that apparently all of the children of Seth “preserved their virginity”—which makes one wonder how they did not go extinct within one generation—apparently all of the children of Seth lived in innocence. Clearly this is generic enough to be meaningless and something that one simply cannot support biblically.

Thus, allegedly these human Sethites were “like angels” and were thus “called “angels of God” but they “transgressed and mingled with the children of Cain.” Why humans marrying humans is said to be a transgression is unstated. But just as the character of the Sethites is generically generalized as holy likewise the character of the Cainites must be generically generalized as unholy. Also, for some unstated reason it was only males of the Sethites and only females of the Cainites.

Then, for some unstated, un-evidenced and unknown reason human Sethites mating with human Cainites resulted in “ill-informed men” who invented the Angels view of Genesis 6.

Thus, the text has not discredited the Angel view and has certainly not accredited the Sethite view.

the20book20of20adam20and20eve2c20also20called20the20conflict20of20adam20and20eve20with20satan-8330258

Now to footnotes 2 which essentially reiterates the text under consideration and which is cited as “Eutych. Nazam al-j., p. 26” which refers to the Melkite Patriarch of Alexandria Sa’id ibn Batriq or Bitriq aka Eutychius of Alexandria (877-940 AD) who wrote Nazam al-jawahir / String of Gems aka Annals of the World. Interestingly, S. C. Malan notes the following of this work, “It is a work of merit ; although, perhaps, too full of stories that cannot be received as authentic.”
In any regard, Eutychius wrote:

It is said in the Law that Sons of God (called Beni Elohim), when they looked upon the beautiful daughters of Cain, came down to them; whence giants were born. But he errs, and knows not what he is saying, who tells us that angels came down to daughters of men (lit. of the flesh). But they were the sons of Seth who came down from the Holy mountain to the daughters of Cain the accursed, for the sons of Seth were called Beni Elohim, or sons of God, by reason of their purity, and so long as they dwelt on the Holy mountain. They err then, who say that angels came down to the daughters of men (lit. of the flesh) ; for the essence of angels is simple [or, single] and their nature is in no need of marriage. Man, however, is composite in his nature, who requires marriage, like other animals. If angels had intercourse with daughters of men, not one of them would remain a virgin.

Well, at least in this footnote’s quotation we are not told to whom “It is said” refers but whoever said it one thing is certain, the Bible does not specify that the “daughters of Cain” but only “daughters of men.” Since the rest of it essentially reiterates the text under consideration then my replies above apply to both.

Lastly, footnote 3 reads, “See S. Matt, xxii, 30, and the same in S. Mark and in S. Luke. See also note 5 from the Coran. Sur. vi, xxxvii, and liii, etc.”

The footnote appears at the assertion that Angles “should be found committing sin with human beings. Never; that cannot be” and the fact is that Matthew 22:30 is one of the most misused texts for such a consideration and is very often misquoted. It is generally quoted by those arguing against the Angels view as “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels” and yet, the verse ends with “of God in heaven.” Thus, the angels of God in heaven do not marry but this says nothing of fallen Angels who, as per Jude 6 “kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation.”

I am assuming that “note 5 from the Coran” aka Koran or Qur’an surahs 6, 37 and 53 refers to a footnote in A. C. Malan’s translation of The Book of Adam and Eve…. I found a footnote 5 within the notes to Book I which references the Coran and which reads (brackets in original):

Then the Lord God [the Word of the Lord, Targ. Hier] said to the ministering angels: “Behold, Adam is alone in the earth as I am alone in the high heavens, and men shall come from him who shall know good from evil. Had he kept My commandment he would have lived and continued [stood] like the Tree of Life, for ever. But now since he has transgressed, let us decree to drive him out of Eden ere he take of the Tree of Life. And God drove Adam from the Garden of Eden, and he went and dwelt on Mount Moriah, to till the ground from which he had been taken. (Targ. Jonathan, in Gen. iii.)

The Jews, says S. Basil (Horn, in Hexaemeron, ix, c. 6), being reduced to great straits…say there were many persons to whom God addressed the words, “Let us make man;” namely to the angels…who waited on Him…but it is a Jewish fiction and fabulous—for is the image of God and of angels one and the same?

In the Coran, snr. vi, 14, Mahomet inveighs against al-mushrikin, those who gave companions to God, and worshipped them, in the shape of angels together with Him. And in sur. xxxvii, 153, and elsewhere, he further blames them—and the former inhabitants of Mecca in particular—for believing that angels were of the female sex, and daughters of God. “Have we created angels females,” says he, “and do we prefer daughters to sons?” etc.

“Targ. Hier” and “Targ. Jonathan” refers to two of many Targumin or Targums which are Aramaic paraphrases of portions of the Old Testament many of which are peppered with Rabbinic folklore.

I added ellipses in the section referring to Basil only because those portions include Greek font which I cannot reproduce so, just in case, here is an image of that portion:

st-20basil20hexaemeron-9130392

Then comes the Coran portion to which footnote 3 directed us. It has Mahomet aka Muhammad condemning correlating anything with Allah and the surah that states:

Now ask them: Are there (only) daughters for your Lord and sons for them or did We create the angels female while they were witnesses. Verily, it is of their falsehood that they say: Allah has begotten. And, verily, they are liars! Has He (then) chosen daughters rather than sons? What is the matter with you How do you decide. Will you not then remember or is there for you a plain authority. Then bring your Book if you are truthful! And they have invented a kinship between Him and the Jinn, but the Jinn know well that they have indeed to appear (before Him). Glorified be Allah! (He is free) from what they attribute unto Him! Except the servants of Allah, whom He chooses.

In any regard, Islam does have a sons of God and Nephilim tale of their own, see Islam’s magickian fallen angels Harut and Marut.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.