Christianity

[Harbal]

Oh, goodness. Do you mean you've never heard of somebody having a doubt about some aspect of Evolutionism? Really?

Of course I've heard of people having doubts about it, and they are entitled to doubt whatever they like, but I have no patience with them when they doubt it on religious grounds.

I've pulled a couple of pieces off the internet, showing that you don't have to completely disengage your brain to be a Christian:


The Church of England, the Anglican denomination that dates to the 16th century, has issued an apology of sorts to Charles Darwin, the British naturalist famous for having advanced the theory of evolution.

In an essay published on the C of E’s Web site, “Good Religion Needs Good Science,” the Rev. Malcolm Brown, the church’s director of mission and public affairs, says that the church, in opposing Darwin’s ideas, has at times been guilty of distorting them and wrongly assuming that they contradict Christian beliefs. The idea that God created humans is consistent with evolution, Brown writes. Evolution simply provides a greater understanding of the exact processes through which humans came to be.

The church’s new point of view, which has been greeted with a mixture of curiosity and derision by the British press, was published with a series of documents about Darwin on the church’s Web site. The publications coincide with the approaching bicentenary of Charles Darwin’s birth in 1809 and the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species in 1859.

---------------

The Church of England's governing body on Friday approved a motion that emphasizes the compatibility of belief in both God and science.
Dr. Peter Capon, a former computer science lecturer, introduced the motion arguing that "rejecting much mainstream science does nothing to support those Christians who are scientists ... or strengthen the Christian voice in the scientific area."

He urged Christians to take scientific evidence seriously and avoid prejudging science for theological reasons.

The vote comes as more than 850 congregations throughout the globe are celebrating Evolution Weekend with the aim of demonstrating that evolution poses no problems for their faith.

Religion and science are not adversaries, they say. Rather, the two fields should be seen as complementary, they maintain.

Evolution Weekend, which kicked off Friday, is supported by those of various faith traditions including Christians, Jews, Muslims and Unitarian Universalists.

"Religious leaders around the world are coming together to elevate the quality of the discussion about this important topic. They are demonstrating to their congregations that people can accept all that modern science has learned while retaining their faith," said Michael Zimmerman, founder of Evolution Weekend and professor of Biology at Butler University in Indianapolis.

Since 2004 more than 12,400 Christian clergypersons from various denominations in the United States have signed "The Clergy Letter," expressing their belief "that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist."

In the letter, Christian clergy contend, "Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.

[Belinda]

What is more probable: that IC needs and desires his belief package to be true, or that my belief package includes that I cannot show there is no afterlife?

Why should not both be true? Maybe I DO "need and desire" something here. Maybe I don't.

But what has the first got to do with the question of truth? If I "need and desire" my beliefs to be true, that doesn't suggest they're false; they might also be true. If I didn't "need and desire" them, would they then automatically become false? Neither idea makes any sense.

But that you cannot show there is no afterlife is highly believable. I think we can accept that. I'm not sure what it contributes to our knowledge of what the truth is, though.

IC is unaware of his confirmation bias that favours the Rock of Ages whereas I am aware of my confirmation bias and try to be as sceptical as I can be.

You and I each are on a progress through our lives. Each of us is who we are due to our separate histories. I think my progress is more comprehensive than yours because I look around with curiosity and you keep your eyes fixed on your map.
I knew a woman who went for a walk in the country for exercise and only for exercise.

[Sculptor]

So a theist is a deist who makes false claims based on no evidence

Does such an obvious misrepresentation deserve a response?

I think not.

And yet you could not resist doing just that, just to prove how good you are at turning away from the truth.

Were any observations of reality be directed towards possible interpretations of "god", and the character of such an idea, I would be hard pressed to reflect that anything could stand in support of the sort of god dreamed of by so-called "Christians".
Why would such an entity allow the sorts of conflicts between CHristians and Muslims; Shiite and Sunni; Protestant and Catholics, IN HIS NAME, to thrive for 100s of years and all the attendant suffering and death that comes from that.
Why are people so blind to their own delusion, who fail to interpret god by the practices of his followers?

So yeah, you turning away from the truth is what I would expect.

[Alexis Jacobi]

...who are this "host of very intelligent others"?

Oh, goodness. Do you mean you've never heard of somebody having a doubt about some aspect of Evolutionism? Really?

Well, let me point you to a couple, if I may...try the names Berlinski, Behe, Craig, Peterson...all have expressed intelligent reservations about the conventional theory.

That's what the Evolutionistic propaganda depends on: not refutation or shoring up the theory, but claiming inerrancy, scoffing, and running away. That's how they convince you there's nothing to discuss.

But we can both recognize an ad hominem evasion when we see one.

My suggestion is that here in this conversation we can clearly see, if we have eyes to look, the problem that we face within this temporal modality. The evolution-theory question is a good place to look because there we can discern the intrusion of ideology into a supposedly 'scientific' and therefore incontestable assertion about *the way things are*. Those who are invested in such an ideological stance cannot, of course, either see their investment nor understand the degree to which it has a whole range of other *functions* for them.

Thus -- and here I will introduce a man who certainly can see and contest *orthodoxies* and *intrusive ideological thinking* -- the thought of David Berlinski can certainly, and should certainly, be considered. He describes himself as existing in and being a part of the general consensus (the way we view life and reality, civilization, economics, also existential and metaphysical issues that 'religions' always tend to be deeply concerned about, and a great deal else) and yet being a critic of the Edifice, as I might call it.

But here we need an example, and just one, in order to demonstrate what he is talking about. He says that from a mathematical perspective it is nearly inconceivably impossible that the complex coded structure of DNA could have arisen 'spontaneously'. He, and others from other disciplines who agree with him, approaches the issue from a mathematical perspective. It is a coherent argument. But yet these determining and coded structures (DNA) do in fact exist, though they are 'nearly impossible' if conceived as arising through random events. Here of course the *argument* (such as it is) of Seeds becomes important and considerable. In a 'random' world (i.e. a chaos) everything would remain like static. Nothing could form. And yet we live in a world (a kosmos) where indeed everything does form. And it would seem that we do not have any really coherent and intelligent way to describe this. To then say: "It simply arose sponteneously" is not an answer at all. What is it then? Ah, there we witness the imposition of a reigning, determining ideological mode of thought. This mode-of-thought has a purpose. It is not innocent, it is not really a simple description of 'the way things are', but encompasses and expresses a range of ideological purposes.

I would definitely suggest researching Berlinki's thought. Here is an interview. Listening to it one can get a sense of *what Berlinksi is up to*. His concerns go well beyond that of determining if the conventional and ideologically-infused system of scientistic-evolutionary assertion is 'right' or if it is 'wrong'. His thought goes much further. Or I can say that the implication of his thought goes further.

Often, and in different ways, ideas that I suggest here are of a similar order: that is to say that I am aware of the *imposition* of defined orthodoxies in a gamut of different areas that seem to determine how people see and think in our present.

But here is the interesting part, and this part cannot be neglected in any sense. We must stop and examine the thought of Immanuel Can who also is operating under an entire system of *imposing ideological assertions*. True, Berlinski does indeed suggest (and strongly) that we do not have the right theory to describe how complex life has arisen, and he does challenge the orthodoxies that have become dominating and indeed tyrannical in our present (as egalitarianism and progressivism has also become so -- but this is another, though related, topic). But Berlinski does not as a result of this realization then opt to turn back toward a former *ideological house* and try to *take up residence in it*. Immanuel Can very much does this. Indeed what most distinguishes IC is precisely that. This is what he wants, this is what he is after. He literally wants us to resume believing in the Genesis story and an ideologically-driven mythology about how all things came to be.

But that is not all. His 'orthodoxic' frame-of-mind has a whole other *set of functions* that can be discerned and placed on the table for examination. He wants to have all of us -- literally all of humanity -- return into a former housing and, as we all know, he tells us that *God* demands that we 'get with the Christian Evangelical program' or else we will wind up in a hell-realm in an theorized afterworld. Immanuel Can is a mimic. He is not in any sense (that I can discern) a free thinker. But the strange thing is he knows how to mimic one and, indeed, presents all his arguments through pseudo-reason. And in this sense Immanuel Can is a representative of a large group of intellectuals who also have strong tendencies toward pseudo-intellectualism.

These men gravitate or better put they swarm around people like Berlinksi because they believe, or they want to believe, that if a man like Berlinski (also a secular Jew and one who should really be an atheist!) has non-conventional ideas that can be used to attack and undermine contemporary reigning orthodoxies driven by ideological positions that are not presented as such but as solid and incontestable facts, then they feel that they have a ways-and-means available to them to resurrect and hold onto the former mythological tales.

And so swarm they do.

Now then we must turn to Harbal! Oh this is fun isn't it? I am rather giddy!

Harbal does not have enough formation in any particular area or discipline to even make sense of the conflict and the 'clash of orthodoxies'. He is, in so many ways, emblematic (as I never tire of saying) of a certain type of postmodern man who is an *outcome* of causal processes. But he cannot see himself. In comparison Berlinski can certainly see himself in the sense I mean. He knows that he is a product of Modernity and he is ensconced within it (in so many ways) and yet he can see this. He has enough objectivity to do so. What does he conclude? Well, not what Immanuel Can concludes of that you can be relatively certain!

Berlinksi has kept the intellectual doors open. He does not have 'answers' and it is safe to say he has simply an expanded group of questions. These may well include 'ultimate philosophical questions' (and indeed it would seem that is the case) but he is not operating as a FUNCTION to bring errent souls back to Jesus as an Evangelical apologetic project.

Harbal operates within the conventions of the present as the Everyman I have referred to. He has received entire ranges of assumptive understanding (listen to how he asserts that conventional evolutionary theory is true and 'real') which operate in him and in this sense determine him. But he did not arrive at this as a free agent. He arrived as a determined product.

Finally, and in the larger scope of this conversation, all the rest of yous who write here do, in your own ways, essentially the same thing as Harbal. In fact you are all not unlike Immanuel Can! But this would be very very hard for you to see. It would require a master metaphysician for you to see that your *way of thinking* has been determined for you! You simply repeat positions like so many quarrelsome parrots.

Let us now bring out an image that Immanuel inadvertently put on the table for examination. The parasite that infests the snail that causes the snail to act and *think* if you will in such a way that reveals having been taken over by a foreign entity. The snail is then turned into a *victim* to be consumed by other biological entities that then perpetuate the cycle. The fact that Immanuel Can brought out such a strange example of the horror that operates in our world is puzzling. Indeed that *infecting parasite* would be a perfect metaphor for the Satanic power, would it not? But more in the sense of a demonic Maya:

Maya: (Sanskrit: “magic” or “illusion”) a fundamental concept in Hindu philosophy, notably in the Advaita (Nondualist) school of Vedanta. Maya originally denoted the magic power with which a god can make human beings believe in what turns out to be an illusion.

If this is the sort of world that 'God' creates then really this god is far more demonic than angelic. The god who'd come up with such a horrifying fate and destiny for any living being but especially for a self-aware human being -- this needs to be examined more closely. I would not imply by this that this horror of reality is the only thing to look at, no. We really do have a *higher world* that draws our attention.

But let's put that aside for the time being . . .

Let us look at idea-structures that act parasitically and take over the intellectual and perceptual modes in present day human beings and 'determine them' is such strange ways.

As you-all have guessed I come here as your Guru. I possess the *keys* through which you can attain a degree of release from your various prisons! Harken to my words! Stop putting up useless walls of resistance! Allow the celestial meaning and the divine harmonies to saturate your being!

[Belinda]

Alexis Jacobi wrote:

In fact you are all not unlike Immanuel Can! But this would be very very hard for you to see. It would require a master metaphysician for you to see that your *way of thinking* has been determined for you! You simply repeat positions like so many quarrelsome parrots.

But Alexis Jacobi too, you are a creature of your history. If you were innocent of any history, say for instance if you lost all your memories, you would be unable to compare your philosophical stance with the stance of Immanuel or anyone else.

[Harbal]

Harbal does not have enough formation in any particular area or discipline to even make sense of the conflict and the 'clash of orthodoxies'. He is, in so many ways, emblematic (as I never tire of saying) of a certain type of postmodern man who is an *outcome* of causal processes. But he cannot see himself. In comparison Berlinski can certainly see himself in the sense I mean. He knows that he is a product of Modernity and he is ensconced within it (in so many ways) and yet he can see this. He has enough objectivity to do so. What does he conclude? Well, not what Immanuel Can concludes of that you can be relatively certain!

-----

Harbal operates within the conventions of the present as the Everyman I have referred to. He has received entire ranges of assumptive understanding (listen to how he asserts that conventional evolutionary theory is true and 'real') which operate in him and in this sense determine him. But he did not arrive at this as a free agent. He arrived as a determined product.

Finally, and in the larger scope of this conversation, all the rest of yous who write here do, in your own ways, essentially the same thing as Harbal. In fact you are all not unlike Immanuel Can! But this would be very very hard for you to see. It would require a master metaphysician for you to see that your *way of thinking* has been determined for you! You simply repeat positions like so many quarrelsome parrots.

Oh my, Alexis, all this attention is going to go to my head. You'll be asking for a signed photo next.

[Harbal]

But Alexis Jacobi too, you are a creature of your history.

I had him down as a creature of the pond.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Alexis Jacobi wrote:

In fact you are all not unlike Immanuel Can! But this would be very very hard for you to see. It would require a master metaphysician for you to see that your *way of thinking* has been determined for you! You simply repeat positions like so many quarrelsome parrots.

But Alexis Jacobi too, you are a creature of your history. If you were innocent of any history, say for instance if you lost all your memories, you would be unable to compare your philosophical stance with the stance of Immanuel or anyone else.

That is why I ALWAYS include myself when I talk about a *we* and an *us* and *ourselves*.

We are all in a very strange historical but much more importantly a metaphysical juncture. We are *lost in it* and yet we cannot see this.

The ritual of walloping Immanuel Can can become productive if it is accompanied by proper mantra.

A mantra (Pali: manta) or mantram (मन्त्रम्) is a sacred utterance, a numinous sound, a syllable, word or phonemes, or group of words in Sanskrit, Pali and other languages believed by practitioners to have religious, magical or spiritual powers.

Sort of the equivalent of whistle while you work!

[Alexis Jacobi]

Oh my, Alexis, all this attention is going to go to my head. You'll be asking for a signed photo next.

I found one on eBay:



I paid dearly but I think it was worth it!

[Harbal]

I found one on eBay:



I paid dearly but I think it was worth it!

Of course, I was much younger then.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Is that what you want me to answer?

What gave you your first clue, AJ? Was it any of the half dozen times I posed the same question?

Yes, I know you have some sort of vaguely Deistic bent. I'm already aware of that. But it doesn't help much to know that, because you said that the same insight could be achieved with no reference to such metaphysics...allegedly.

I had said:

"First, I do ‘believe in’ divinity. I simply have no way to describe what *it* is. Just like I cannot describe what existence IS.

But it is."

Naturally for you, to have taken this position is, in a sense, worse than simply being an atheist. You glommed on to this because you have been determined to do so. You cannot do otherwise. The satanic parasite has got into your very insides and determines what you think and see and there is no way for you to see differently! How are we to look at, and what are we to think about, such ideological parasitism?

What force and what power within this strange strange world is behind it?

All I can do, all I intend to do, is to point out that people have thought about these questions. My point of reference is *the ancient Rishis*. They really did look at the world with strartling fresh and even *pure* eyes. They saw the incredible organization of it. They saw that it was a *manifest world* and in this way they conceived, rightly or wrongly I cannot know, of our sphere of existence as a 'loka':

loka = world
loka, (Sanskrit: “world”) in the cosmography of Hinduism, the universe or any particular division of it. The most common division of the universe is the tri-loka, or three worlds (heaven, earth, atmosphere; later, heaven, world, netherworld), each of which is divided into seven regions.

They understood that, somehow, we (whatever we are) have been provided with a *space* (the arch of the sky) and that light enters our world (the dawn) and also leaves our world (the dusk) in an endless cycle. And here in this world all creatures live and carry on. What were they to make of it? What are we -- ultimately -- to make of it?

There are all manner of different impositions (pictures, descriptions) about what it is, why it is, even where it is; but also what it means and why we find ourselves here.

So in this sense when I describe *divinity* as Being itself, or Existence, I am presenting a sound idea. That things exist has to be part of the wonder of 'divinity', no? But to say that what I am referring to is 'vaguely Deistic' and defective as such -- that is a mistake on your part. It comes from your Hebrew Idea-Imperialism and that "all knees must bow" before you.

Back to those very early Rishis: what really freaked them out was degeneration and death. The ultimate horrifying end of all living beings. It is reasonable, if you think about it, to 'rage against the dying of the light' when this death is usually always accompanied by suffering and pain. So it also stands to reason that these Rishis (I am using this a a general emblem for inquiring man) would wonder if there is a way out of this condition, this biological and existential prison. Really, Christianity is involved with the same core question, and it tries to impose its own answer too: the Fall.

You think within such strict, limiting constraints Immanuel Can! And you are incapable of thinking out side of them. You believe that you have in your possession The Absolute Truth and for this reason (in your mind) you go on endlessly preaching and trying to convert.

because you said that the same insight could be achieved with no reference to such metaphysics...allegedly.

You never have listened to what I have said, and you can never hear, because of the force and power of your own ideological imposition. You cannot consider any ideas outside of that as having validity.

I did not ever say that the 'insight' I refer to could be achieved non-metaphysically since my entire idea is that everything "metaphysical" arose simultaneously with the very creation. How could it be otherwise?

Your entire problem is that you are married to a Hebrew idea-construct. In the ultimate sense it is absolutely possessive. It says "every knee will bow" and that opens the door to horrifying ramifications of plowing over the entire field of human awareness and installing "just one".

I have exited such a system! I cannot any longer think in such terms. And though this means that I must decouple from you as an outrageously determined ideological agent I opt not to turn away from 'higher meaning'.

That position if anathema to you -- because it means I have escaped your control.

The more that you dig in to your position, the less you seem to even be involved in anything light-bringing, uplifting and nurturing, and the more you seem possessed by a demonic parasite.

I propose cures. I am willing to sell you one for only $9.99 a month! Think it through.

I can bring you back to something with a strong resemblance to normality -- but you have to work with me!

[Alexis Jacobi]

My question, dear Immanuel Can, remains to be celarly and coherently answered by you:

If you are really & truly interested in revealing the truth would you kindly, would you please, would you pretty-ultra-pretty-super-please tell me how God created everything and set it up in such a way that complex species relationships, seemingly inconceivable in the evolution-picture, came to be?

Here is your moment.

Just explain it in clear prose -- if you can.

Help me to get clear of the delusions I suffer with because I cannot, even if I were to want to, believe in the Genesis story. I can believe in a magnificent, utterly strange manifest world of being (*existence*) and I can also suppose that it -- everything -- has been created by the Being of divinity. But I have no way, except through borrowed language-constructs, to refer to that. How could I? How could anyone?

[Immanuel Can]

You make it sound like a choice that has to be made, but for a lot of people, such as me, it isn't even an issue. I wouldn't even think about it normally.

That's interesting. I've been reading Charles Taylor's book, "A Secular Age," and he thinks that's the option most people today take...to leave these issues unraised, these positions undefined...not to think about them at all.

Charles Taylor, indeed.

Curious, after one of our previous encounters, I asked my daughter if she believed in God. I expected her to say no, and was a bit disappointed when she didn't. All was not lost, though, because she didn't say yes, either. She sort of grimaced and shrugged, and eventually came out with, "well I sometimes think there must be something." I asked her if that thought had any influence on the way she lived her life or how she conducted herself in any way. To those questions I got an instant and satisfying no. I expect that is a pretty typical attitude these days. I don't mind if you pass on that anecdote to Charles Taylor, btw.

Yes, I think you're right.

And we could blame that generation as merely "unthinking" or "unphilosophical," perhaps.

But I wouldn't. I would say that we've set them back considerably, in that regard, by the abundance of prosperity and the number of distractions and the business of the life our generation has created for them. Amid so much hustle and bustle, who can afford time to reflect? And if one could, what seem the prospects of getting anywhere with it, given the multitude of voices out there? I can quite understand why they prefer to resign the question with a shrug. After all, one of the most perilous things one can do, in the postmodern era, is put one's foot solidly down on a singular position (be it Atheism or Theism or anything else). The generation seems to find it not merely serviceable but expedient not to take firm positions, but to leave all "loose" so as to remain "light on one's feet" for the next event or new bit of information to come, which might, after all, overthrow everything one has been thinking and render one a fool for having locked oneself down.

Add to that that their parents' generation claim to have found no answers to such questions, and what's the point of even going on the hunt?

Is that good? He seems to think not. I would tend to agree. And philosophy is one of those annoying disciplines that simply cannot resist poking at questions others would not even think to touch

I don't know why anyone would feel a need to adopt a set of superstitious beliefs,

Nor do I.

I'll annoy you when I say this, but I don't consider "religion" either. Of course, that would depend on what one thinks "religion" means...but that's a big issue, in itself.

In regard to my comment, religion means believing in some kind of god and conforming to a set of rules that you imagine he's given to you. I cannot think of a single benefit that could come from that.

Not being any subscriber to a set-of-rules ideology myself, I can't speak to that question much. But I do think some people actually like rules: they give one security, and also grounds for making distinctions against others, so that pride can operate more effectively. But these things seem like, and are condemned as, missteps insofar as any matter of truth or genuine reverence toward God is concerned.

It is irresponsible of you to encourage the rejection of legitimate science...

I'm not. I'm pointing out the flaws in a hokey provisional anthropogenic theory, not condemning science. In fact, as I pointed out, to exempt ANY scientific theory from criticism is the most unscientific thing one could possibly do.

Why would we feel that Evolutionism -- if it is "real science" -- needs to be protected from rational examination and critique? Examination and critique is EXACTLY how science progresses. What scientist, acting like a scientist, could rationalize that?

But a hokey provisional theory...THAT would need to be protected -- mainly because it could not hope to survive the examinations of real science.

[Immanuel Can]

Evolution is not a belief

Don't you believe it?

"Evolutionism" is your problem, not mine.

Apparently not. I don't believe it.

[Immanuel Can]

Oh, goodness. Do you mean you've never heard of somebody having a doubt about some aspect of Evolutionism? Really?

Of course I've heard of people having doubts about it, and they are entitled to doubt whatever they like, but I have no patience with them when they doubt it on religious grounds.

I have been criticizing it on scientific grounds. Things like the mathematics of the past, triadic parasitism, the entropic principle, the lack of transitional forms, the fossil record and so on, have no mention at all in the Bible, and none that I know of in theology. They're purely scientific critiques.

Why would we then be afraid of them? And why would Evolutionists be in such hurry to suppress them, by claiming that their theory is simply beyond possibility of critique and reform, when the critiques themselves are empirical and scientific?