Christianity

[Harbal]

That is a defective strategy on various accounts. One is that to combat something (let's say effectively) it must be understood thoroughly.

The effectiveness of a strategy is measured by comparing its outcome against that intended. Unless you know my intended outcome -which would be strange, as I don't even know it myself- how can you think you are in a position to judge my strategy defective?

You see how ideas work, Harbal? People have *ideas* and they have *values* and, as a result of defining them, and believing in them, they are then compelled to put their beliefs into action. And there is a special word for that! It's called morality.

Well, if I didn't have values of my own, I wouldn't be in the position of opposing those whose values conflicted with them, would I? So, yes, I know about values, you patronising twat.

[Immanuel Can]

You see how ideas work, Harbal? People have *ideas* and they have *values* and, as a result of defining them, and believing in them, they are then compelled to put their beliefs into action. And there is a special word for that! It's called morality.

Well, if I didn't have values of my own, I wouldn't be in the position of opposing those whose values conflicted with them, would I? So, yes, I know about values, you patronising twat.

He's got his definition wrong, too. When people put beliefs into action, that's called "acting." Whether or not it's moral is still totally a subject of debate.

No doubt Stalin put his beliefs into action when he lined up captured Polish soldiers in the Katyn Forest and had them shot.

Would AJ call that "morality"? Under his own imperious "definition," he'd have to.

[phyllo]

That is a defective strategy on various accounts. One is that to combat something (let's say effectively) it must be understood thoroughly.

The effectiveness of a strategy is measured by comparing its outcome against that intended. Unless you know my intended outcome -which would be strange, as I don't even know it myself- how can you think you are in a position to judge my strategy defective?

You see how ideas work, Harbal? People have *ideas* and they have *values* and, as a result of defining them, and believing in them, they are then compelled to put their beliefs into action. And there is a special word for that! It's called morality.

Well, if I didn't have values of my own, I wouldn't be in the position of opposing those whose values conflicted with them, would I? So, yes, I know about values, you patronising twat.

Now you're a sniper who doesn't know his intended outcome?

Pull the other one.

[Lacewing]

I don't need to know why, nor even care why, certain religious movements might be campaigning and lobbying against abortion rights, for example. If I want to play a part in opposing them, I just need to understand the strategy and techniques they employ to achieve their aims.

That is a defective strategy on various accounts. One is that to combat something (let's say effectively) it must be understood thoroughly. If you cannot, let's say, understand Christian adamancy for the right of the fetus, you will not be able to understand the so-called extremism that results in defense of that fetal life.

Extremism indicates that there is more at work than something that can be understood and reasoned with.

No individual can thoroughly understand another's opposing view... although you like to pretend that you do, so that you can claim to see all and still be right.

But on what basis do Christians value the life of a human being?

They believe in a god and they imagine what that god wants and says. That is their basis for everything. How do you reason with extremist imagination which is dependent on ignoring all to the contrary?

[phyllo]

Extremism indicates that there is more at work than something that can be understood and reasoned with.

So what are you going to do if you can't reason with them?

[Lacewing]

Extremism indicates that there is more at work than something that can be understood and reasoned with.

So what are you going to do if you can't reason with them?

What would you do when facing extremism? Or do you imagine that you can reason with everyone?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Well, if I didn't have values of my own, I wouldn't be in the position of opposing those whose values conflicted with them, would I? So, yes, I know about values, you patronising twat.

I promised you I’d do better!

You take nothing seriously … except youself!

Be light & breezy, bro! You’ll go to sleep more often with that smile you spoke of.

I’m a diurnal smiler myself. (Ooops. I mean a daytime smiler, sorry Belinda!)

[Lacewing]

I promised you I’d do better!

You take nothing seriously … except youself!

No, you really are a tiresome pompous ass.

[Harbal]

...to most people who accept evolution as a scientific truth -which would be most educated people, I suspect- it is just one of many scientific truths that they accept. It holds no special place in their world view.

I'd add a word...for most people, it holds no self-aware place in their worldview." That's because, as we routinely observe, people don't examine their own worldview for consistency. Rather, they tend to live ad hoc and semi-consciously, either distracted by their busy lives or actually resistant to too much introspection and self-questioning. Their worldviews are things they "see through," like a pair of spectacles, not so much a thing they ever want to "look at," like a subject on a microscope slide.

I agree, this is probably true for the average person, and has no doubt always been so. That's how human beings tend to function, and is probably an example of natural selection at work.

And what do these "spectacles" lead us to assume, on a semi-conscious level, even when we're not thinking about them? Well, what we are is defined by whether or not we believe we were made, and made by design, and made with any end in view. If, as Evolutionism asks us to believe, we are accidental products of time plus chance, then the logic of that assumption is that there is no purpose, direction, design or intention in our existence. And, we might add, whatever "morality" is, it has to be some sort of odd "epiphenomenon" of being human, but not related to any objective property about the universe, and hence, not obligatory or enforceable for anyone, save through the morally-questionable application of power.

Most people have a sense of morality, whether they be religious or secular. I do not believe we are here with any predetermined purpose, yet I have quite a strong sense of morality. I have no reason to think I am a rarity in that respect. Besides, lots of religious people, including Christians, seem to be able to reconcile evolution and their religious beliefs. I posted a couple of articles about the C of E embracing evolution as truth, but you neglected to comment on them.

So we have no reason to look for direction, objective value, objective purpose, or objective fulfillment in life...just maybe subjective pleasures or complacencies. And no form of inquiry will help us with that.

I'd say those are pretty serious assumptions that shape worldview, wouldn't you?

No, I wouldn't say that. I would say you are dipping into your seemingly endless supply of red herrings again.

So you don't regard guys like Thomas Nagel, or David Berlinski, or Francis Collins, or Wilder Penfield, or andy of these people https://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/people qualify as to express an opinion on the subject? And presumably, if ordinary people like you and I have any view of the subject, we are also unfit to voice those concerns?

I've never heard of any of them. You know very well that, whatever these four people say, I could find another four of equal stature who say the opposite. You also know equally well that I am not the sort of person who would bother with going to the trouble of doing it.

That's an interesting assumption. I don't share it. I think any real scientific theory would only benefit from addressing the concerns they represent, if only to overcome them and refine its terms. However, I do agree that a hokey, pretentious, pseudo-scientific theory would wish to avoid their scrutiny...that, I can understand.

Look, it isn't a big deal to most people. Folks just assume evolution to be the case because it is main stream scientific opinion. They probably don't care one way or the other about it. I suppose it is easy to believe because the alternative, of human beings being just conjured into existence fully formed, is rather hard to swallow.

[Alexis Jacobi]

He's got his definition wrong, too. When people put beliefs into action, that's called "acting." Whether or not it's moral is still totally a subject of debate.

No sirrah my definition was perfect.

Obviously, those who say that abortion is moral do so because they have a set of determining values. Those who oppose abortion, the same.

Each acts on the basis of their moral conclusion. It is still morality even if (I or someone sees it as) flawed.

I do get it though that you have specific Christian morals.

Harbal, opposing the tyrannical moral imposition of hopped-up extremists, opposes the militant pro-lifers. His position is a moral one.

I intoned this neatly earlier:

People have *ideas* and they have *values* and, as a result of defining them, and believing in them, they are then compelled to put their beliefs into action.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I promised you I’d do better!

You take nothing seriously … except youself!

No, you really are a tiresome pompous ass.

I prefer to see what I do in a wondrous light. Yet even you will say “to each his own”!

I am trying to make high art Lacewing!

[Harbal]

You take nothing seriously … except youself!

There are some exceptions, but if you think myself is one of them, your observation and perception skills need looking at.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Immanuel writes: That's an interesting assumption. I don't share it. I think any real scientific theory would only benefit from addressing the concerns they represent, if only to overcome them and refine its terms. However, I do agree that a hokey, pretentious, pseudo-scientific theory would wish to avoid their scrutiny...that, I can understand.

Right. Creation by fiat. Adam & Eve in a garden. The Ark. On and on.

Yessir: real science there!

God help us ….

[Alexis Jacobi]

I've never heard of any of them. You know very well that, whatever these four people say, I could find another four of equal stature who say the opposite. You also know equally well that I am not the sort of person who would bother with going to the trouble of doing it.

That’s true. But you’d understand nothing of what they say in any case.

Man imitates Chat GPT!

[Immanuel Can]

...to most people who accept evolution as a scientific truth -which would be most educated people, I suspect- it is just one of many scientific truths that they accept. It holds no special place in their world view.

I'd add a word...for most people, it holds no self-aware place in their worldview." That's because, as we routinely observe, people don't examine their own worldview for consistency. Rather, they tend to live ad hoc and semi-consciously, either distracted by their busy lives or actually resistant to too much introspection and self-questioning. Their worldviews are things they "see through," like a pair of spectacles, not so much a thing they ever want to "look at," like a subject on a microscope slide.

I agree, this is probably true for the average person, and has no doubt always been so. That's how human beings tend to function, and is probably an example of natural selection at work.

Well, except that people don't "die" from their own inconsistent relation to their worldviews. If they die, it will be due to the worldviews of others, as enacted on them.

Marxism kills people -- especially those who are not Marxists, but also unfortunate Marxists. It's pretty opportunistic, really.

And what do these "spectacles" lead us to assume, on a semi-conscious level, even when we're not thinking about them? Well, what we are is defined by whether or not we believe we were made, and made by design, and made with any end in view. If, as Evolutionism asks us to believe, we are accidental products of time plus chance, then the logic of that assumption is that there is no purpose, direction, design or intention in our existence. And, we might add, whatever "morality" is, it has to be some sort of odd "epiphenomenon" of being human, but not related to any objective property about the universe, and hence, not obligatory or enforceable for anyone, save through the morally-questionable application of power.

Most people have a sense of morality, whether they be religious or secular.[/quote]
Agreed. But what many of them don't have is a worldview supportive of it.

I posted a couple of articles about the C of E embracing evolution as truth, but you neglected to comment on them.

Did you? I didn't see.

Well, as it happens, I'm not C of E; and even if I were, I would not subordinate my intellect to them.

So you don't regard guys like Thomas Nagel, or David Berlinski, or Francis Collins, or Wilder Penfield, or andy of these people https://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/people qualify as to express an opinion on the subject? And presumably, if ordinary people like you and I have any view of the subject, we are also unfit to voice those concerns?

I've never heard of any of them.

Not terribly germaine to the question. Their short bios are there.

And that brings up another interesting point: why WOULDN'T people acknowledge that such people exist, when clearly, they do.

You also know equally well that I am not the sort of person who would bother with going to the trouble of doing it.

I'm not trying to capitalize on your lack of desire to investigate. In fact, that's why I presented them to you, in the first place...so you could find very easily that I was telling you the truth, if you cared to.

You don't have to care to.

That's an interesting assumption. I don't share it. I think any real scientific theory would only benefit from addressing the concerns they represent, if only to overcome them and refine its terms. However, I do agree that a hokey, pretentious, pseudo-scientific theory would wish to avoid their scrutiny...that, I can understand.

Look, it isn't a big deal to most people. Folks just assume evolution to be the case because it is main stream scientific opinion. They probably don't care one way or the other about it. I suppose it is easy to believe because the alternative, of human beings being just conjured into existence fully formed, is rather hard to swallow.[/quote]
There are no end of examples, as you said earlier, of people who don't think much about the issue at all. That doesn't mean they got free of its gravity. What it means is only that they've been so completely fooled into thinking that Evolutionism is "science" and "fact" that they don't even bother thinking about it anymore, and wouldn't dream of questioning it.

That just speaks to the effectiveness of the propaganda, not to their immunity to its influence on their worldview. In fact, the things we don't even examine, but simply take for granted, are generally where we find the most deep-rooted, pervasive biases and blind spots people have.