Continuing a discussion I had with an evolutionist Atheist named Tony Conn due to my having posted the following comment on my Facebook page, “If you keep up with evolution news, you know that just about every week they have to ‘rethink’ it” along with a reference to the article Evolution timeframes get a rethink after scientists take a closer look at Earth’s first animals.
Continuing a discussion I had with an evolutionist Atheist named Tony Conn due to my having posted the following comment on my Facebook page, “If you keep up with evolution news, you know that just about every week they have to ‘rethink’ it” along with a reference to the article Evolution timeframes get a rethink after scientists take a closer look at Earth’s first animals. Find our whole discussion here.
Friend, it seems to me that you think that I have been engaged in empty rhetoric, because like so very many Atheists, you have grown accustomed to beginning with a conclusion and having your opponents spending all of their time playing defense. What I have been doing is pointing out that you have gotten ahead of yourself and must begin at the beginning.
It is quite simple: you are attempting to talk me into believing that you are a temporarily and accidentally existing ape whose thoughts are the result of your haphazardly evolved brain’s bio-chemical reactions. If such is the case then who care about your precious evolutionary theory-worldview? If we are just temporarily and accidentally existing bio-organisms living in a temporarily and accidentally existing universe then who made you the truth police?
Now, since your worldview cannot provide you with a premise for truth, logic and ethics, you merely sidestep this fact, claim you do not need one and continue demanding adherence to truth, logic and ethics. But since you do so without a premise then your every statement is tantamount to the proverbial monkey randomly pounding keys on a keyboard. Consider the absurdity of one ape attempting to demand and another ape adhere to a certain theory that is supposed to be about biology. Moreover, the absurdity is that you think that I should change my brain’s random bio-chemical reaction to match yours because yours reflect reality better.
Now, fascinatingly the claim that “truth and ethical living shouldn’t need some particular worldview…” but “shouldn’t” is an unfounded assertion: “shouldn’t” why, because you say so?
Also, your worldview is what pushed you in their direction that “truth and ethical living shouldn’t need some particular worldview….”
Likewise, you refer to “perfectly rational reasons” but in doing so you are merely asserting rationale, that such rationale is valid, that were to base our actions on valid reasons, etc. but all of that is unfounded so you are demanding adherence to the predestined results of bio-chemical reactions.
Sure, “There are perfectly rational reasons for wanting to live in a world where people are honest and don’t harm each other” but how do you go from that to that this is an imperative and that those who disagree are wrong, must be punished, etc.? This is the classing is/ought problem and while perhaps on a good day your worldview can discern what is, it can never tell us what ought to be—beyond voicing mere assertion as you have been doing base on your subjective personal preferences de jour: actually, based on begging, borrowing and stealing from my worldview.
Note that when it comes to dishonest you merely state, “I do object” which is exactly what I have been pointing out: you began with the conclusion that you object, you have no premise upon which to condemn it and so your condemnation of it is impotent.
There is a reason why I referred to the scientific method being designed based on divine revelation as being “the simple verifiable history” and that is because it is so: just read any book on the history of science. Your reply that this is my “theology” and “has nothing to do with scientific method” merely shows that you are unaware of this historical fact.
The premise (yes, there is that key word again) upon which the scientific method was designed is essentially that a rational creator created a rational universe which functions on rational principles and was populated with rational beings who could therefore, rationally discern it.
I hope you can see why such a theistic premise would lead to the scientific method. I also hope you can see why your worldview could not. Who would imagine to premise the scientific method on the premise that nothing caused nothing (or an eternal uncaused first cause tiny ball of matter) to explode for no reason and made everything without meaning, that this temporarily and accidentally existing universe runs the way it does by accident, that it is populated by temporarily and accidentally existing organisms whose brains were accidentally haphazardly evolved, that their thoughts are the predestined result of bio-chemical reactions and that the ultimate purpose of those thoughts is survival (for some unexplained reason) and not necessarily ascertaining empirical truth.
But worse for you is something upon which I have already touched which is that even if that view is accurate, that would be the very best reason for rejecting it, ignoring it, etc. since it would mean that we are temporarily and accidentally existing organisms and as long as we survive then it matters not.
Thus, the reason why even the science, the method, of Christians in science is “strictly secular” is because they understand that science is a particular tool for a particular job: the exploration of the material realm by material means. That you ask “Why does that threaten you?” is not only erroneously presuppositional but empty rhetoric.
Thus, indeed, “Science has” to which I will add: apparently and for now “no way of testing the supernatural, it can only limit itself to the natural world – but the natural world turns out to explain a great deal. Just like Laplace, scientists have ‘no need of that hypothesis.’” But such is not a statement against theology but is a result of the theological premise for science which was designed to explain a great deal about the natural world.
Thus, on this historically well know view: Bible believers established the scientific method and Atheists are the cheap cargo cult imitations of science—the very ones who gave rise to scientism.
It is also fascinating that when I note your specific demand for logic while failing to provide a premise with reference to calling “evolutionary biologists dogmatic and also criticise them…” you are so incapable of engaging the issue that you sidestep it with a childish taunt of “I’m sorry for expecting you to be logical. I see the error of my ways.” Your worldview fails to provide you a premise upon which to demand adherence to logic (if your worldview could even premise logic itself in the first place) so rather than facing this fact and/or dealing with it you employ a typical schoolyard bully diversionary tactic. But I have had way too many Atheist replace reasoned discourse with childishness to fall for that.
As to on what basis I can say that you are begging, borrowing and stealing from my worldview, etc., etc., etc. well, that is what I have been elucidating. And, note that you agree with me (even if unconsciously) since I argued “your worldview would just as easily tell you…do what thou wilt” so that you must borrow from mine and you say (admit) “My ‘worldview’ clearly hasn’t led me to do what I wilt”: well, it allows for it but you do not do so because you borrow from mine and I know you borrow from mine because yours allows for it.
But then you, once again, fail to note that I am asking about your worldview and not pinning it to science (since your worldview is clearly not scientific) so that I am not necessarily implying that it is connected to survival of the fittest. And as for me put words in your mouth well, if you could deal with the issue I would not have to: actually, I would not appear to you as if I were.
It is quite simple, “the meaning is that it is meaningless which means that it is meaningful”: if you recognize meaningless then you recognize that as a meaning.
You love your family based on my worldview because love is a concept which derives from my worldview—at least in the context in which you are employing the term. Here is what I mean: in your worldview “love” means the accidental result of bio-chemical reactions which have some connection to your unexplained desire to reproduce, survive, engage in in-group reciprocity and altruism, etc. when you could have just as easily eaten your family.
Lastly I appreciate the apology but no, you have not upset me in the least bit. I have Atheists unleash utter hate filled rage against me rousingly—peppered with all sorts of expletives. While you do not seem to recognize the need to deal with core issues before jumping to conclusions you are at least quite amicable—even though you do get unnecessarily emotive at times such as “logorrhea…shrill, desperate tone.” The reason to repeat your words reversed is so that you could see how generically meaningless some of your assertions have been.
We will continue in the next segment.
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. Here is my donate page.