IC please clarify for us

[Immanuel Can]

The materialist has no good reason to assume that the neural net that is his/her brain (neural net emulated by the biological components of the brain) has not been TRAINED (has not learned) to properly evaluate the function "rational thought".

Yes, he does. There's no coherence to the "training," either; because like the brain, the environment in which it is "trained" is merely a product of chance plus materials.

You simply have little understanding of how a materialist thinks.

That's not the same question. I'm talking about what Materialism would lead them to think, if they really believed it and followed it. Lots of Materialists don't...and with good reason...not only is it merely reductional, it also fails to account for realities that we all live with every day, such as rationality, consciousness, truth and science.

[Immanuel Can]

If you believe in something metaphysical, then you're not a Materialist at all.

I think you continue in a mistake: I am not defending the ideology of materialism, I am (perhaps) attempting to explain it. But one thing I am relatively clear about is that it is man, and I think man alone, who recognizes and responds to metaphysical categories.

The Materialist would have to call that mere delusion.

I would appreciate it if you would kindly cite an event or process within nature that you believe is ‘evil’. Myself, I cannot discover any.

Read Neiman's book, and you'll see somebody who thinks natural events may be "evils." She gives a good account of herself. Now, I may not agree with her in every case, but it blows to pieces your claim that the view that nature cannot contain things people call "evils."

[phyllo]

However, man’s destiny and situation in the World, is not the same. Though a physicalist cannot but see it the same way.

"Destiny" is a metaphysical concept. Why would a physicalist think about it at all?

[Alexis Jacobi]

However, man’s destiny and situation in the World, is not the same. Though a physicalist cannot but see it the same way.

"Destiny" is a metaphysical concept. Why would a physicalist think about it at all?

I agree, he could not conceive of destiny. Physicalism and Materialism become doctrinaire and, I have also thought, are themselves a sort of metaphysics. Richard Weaver wrote of our ‘metaphysical dream of the world’. The Jewish vision (dream) of the world is rather absolute and totalizing, and Christianity takes it on and expands and universalizes it. All the religious visions of “the World” are based in such conceptions. The Myths of Plato are extraordinary examples. But then consider the world without the superimposed vision or dream: It is strictly a world of physical and biological interactions. An immense ball of interacting forces and a giant ecological system.

This is the part in the discussion (on-going for years) where IC more or less drops away. I find his last meagre response typical but telling.

The fact of the matter is that ‘the World’ is really pretty much as scientistic materialists and physicists describe it. The factor or the element about which we are concerned is our own mysterious selves and those elements IC does positively refer to: consciousness, awareness, creativity and ‘science’ when taken in the expanded sense. When the focus (of spiritual endeavor) becomes the Self (the focus on an internal kernel where what is Divine and Transcendent resides), there ‘spiritual life’ begins. But also what begins is that profound pondering on the nature of the realm and, say, the series of events by which that which we call ourself finds itself here: awake even partially or momentarily in Existence. That position of realization, that pondering, that meditation on the fact of Existing, is our ‘destiny’ and also the point where a different sort of relationship to being alive begins.

Notice that Novak is constrained or enclosed within a “conceptual system” that appears grounded in reality, which it certainly is insofar as he is right: the brain is indeed a biologically contrived ‘net’ and braininess (and eyes, ears and the senses and brains are shared by all creatures). At the level of concept IC introduces descriptions of other ‘facts’ about our existence and being that involve a whole other set of human possibilities, but those depend not on the mere brain-as-biological-computer, but on an intelligent (intellectus) soul: i.e. that kernel where Divinity resides and is realized. The problem with Novac’s system is that it severs one away from entire orders of understanding that indeed involve intellectus:

The faculty of thought. As understood in Catholic philosophical literature it signifies the higher, spiritual, cognitive power of the soul. It is in this view awakened to action by sense, but transcends the latter in range. Amongst its functions are attention, conception, judgment, reasoning, reflection, and self-consciousness.

So, the fundamental issue is our conceptual systems. And for this reason I propose a sound critique of IC’s dogmatic system, which explains in one domain while also constraining fuller understanding. And for this reason, and at this point, a more expansive conversation as metaphysicians could actually begin.

But the problem is that Novac (symbolizing physicalism and modern materialism) and IC (symbolizing doctrinaire Evangelicalism) cannot take the leap: both conceptual systems suffer their own limitations and stultify advancement.

[Alexis Jacobi]

…but it blows to pieces your claim that the view that nature cannot contain things people call "evils."

But my request was not answered by referring to someone’s book, and I am curious to know what you can cite in Nature that you believe to be evil.

See, this is where the Christian story becomes non-explanatory. The Christian understanding is that Nature was originally good but the decisions of two Proto-Humans in the primeval setting not only contaminated human life and destiny, but afflicted the entire World and Creation.

So if ‘the World’ was good prior to that Event, there could certainly have been no ‘creatures killing and feeding on other creatures” which, in our discussion, became emblemized by the shark killing and eating the seal.

So what world was it that was deathless and non-predatorial?

The story of The Fall needs revision.

The World in which we find ourselves is, from our interpretive perspective, absolutely cruel, terrifying and horrifying: when its essential nature is understood (seen, internalized). And that is our situation: we are parts-and-parcels of that terrible creation. We are totally in it, but we “dream of” a world-beyond-the-world.

The fact is we really cannot bear the world as it is. And so we long to a) improve it so that it is bearable, or b) we seek to transcend the brutality of this plane or level (of conceived reality) for a higher plane. Such as for example the Christian heaven and so many similar conceptions.

Gary? Have you gone totally silent? Come hither child!

[MikeNovack]

…but it blows to pieces your claim that the view that nature cannot contain things people call "evils."

But my request was not answered by referring to someone’s book, and I am curious to know what you can cite in Nature that you believe to be evil.

See, this is where the Christian story becomes non-explanatory. The Christian understanding is that Nature was originally good but the decisions of two Proto-Humans in the primeval setting not only contaminated human life and destiny, but afflicted the entire World and Creation.

So if ‘the World’ was good prior to that Event, there could certainly have been no ‘creatures killing and feeding on other creatures” which, in our discussion, became emblemized by the shark killing and eating the seal

Ah, but that is just the Christian interpretation of the Garden story. From the Jewish perspective, the Garden hasn't changed, humans did. Christians focus on "sin" ignoring WHAT was "stolen" << it's a myth of humans getting something stolen from the gods class >> We humans obtained the KNOWLEDGE to perceive "good and evil". Beauty is in the eye of the beholder doesn't mean ONLY beauty is like that. Here, good and evil are now in the eye of humans, and this excludes them from the Garden.

BTW -- from the Jewish perspective, not about sin at all. When Eve eats the fruit, does not yet have knowledge of good and evil (so cannot "sin"). When Adam eats thee fruit, same thing. We are now left with Eve giving the fruit to Adam. Here the "comparative evil" rule comes into play. If A and B are both sins, B a far greater sin than A, and one is constrained so MUST do either A or B, then A is not considered a sin. Eve can either give the fruit to Adam or not (no other option). If she does not, she is both ordered to lie down with him and forbidden to lie down with an animal (capital offense). If she does, Adam will be a fellow human, not a beast.

We are not in The Garden because we see good and evil in Nature.

[Immanuel Can]

…but it blows to pieces your claim that the view that nature cannot contain things people call "evils."

But my request was not answered by referring to someone’s book...

I'm open to arguments about what the differences between human evil and natural evils might be. Neiman has her take. I'm not thoroughly convinced, but she makes a good case, in some ways. And certainly, her usage of the word "evil" matches well with the way most people seem to use the term "evil": that is, to cover both human and natural evils. So the one thing that is clear is that if there are no such things as natural evils, the person who says so has a case to make.

And that would be you. Since I'm unresolved on that question, I'd be willing to hear your case. But to pretend your view is just obvious, and that everybody already believes it...well, that's not convincing.

Similarly, the claim that Materialism is "powerful" and, in some way, the default for rational people, as you seem to imply, would be a bridge too far too fast. Materialism's actually a rather lame philosophy, I would say, and in some ways, so lame that it cannot even deal with large areas of life that are essential and are experienced and even relied upon by us every day.

The Christian understanding is that Nature was originally good but the decisions of two Proto-Humans in the primeval setting not only contaminated human life and destiny, but afflicted the entire World and Creation. So if ‘the World’ was good prior to that Event, there could certainly have been no ‘creatures killing and feeding on other creatures” which, in our discussion, became emblemized by the shark killing and eating the seal. So what world was it that was deathless and non-predatorial?

We aren't told. We can't speculate. But since death was not an issue, as the Bible makes perfectly clear, it's not reasonable to suppose predation. If, as I suggest, the prelapsarian state existed, there was no requirement of that.

It's funny you suggest (sometimes) you don't have a problem with the idea of a Supreme Being existing, but then you seem to want to place limits on the scenarios He can manage. How do those two things go together, for you? Honest question.

The fact is we really cannot bear the world as it is.

That fact needs explanation: how is it that we find ourselves in an "unbearable" world, if that's what we have? And any philosophy worth its salt has got to take that question very seriously. Traditionally, this is where the problem of evil appears: that in this world in which we live, both people, by their choices, and the natural order, by its inclusion of features like pain, suffering, loss, grief, entropy and death, are out-of-tune for what we long to have, and not particularly congenial to us as humans.

That's the traditional "problem of evil." Every philosophy has it, but some pretend they don't. Others just shrug. But I don't think we can accept the situation in which no viable answer is provided. Evil (of both kinds) is too real a phenomenon, too essential to our experience, merely to be ignored or glossed over -- as I'm sure you'd agree.

[Alexis Jacobi]

So the one thing that is clear is that if there are no such things as natural evils, the person who says so has a case to make.

And that would be you. Since I'm unresolved on that question, I'd be willing to hear your case. But to pretend your view is just obvious, and that everybody already believes it...well, that's not convincing

The only argument I make is that within ecological systems the very nature and structure of these systems is that, to live and exist, creatures are forced to kill and eat other creatures. It is a frighteningly bizarre, but amazing indeed wondrous “world”. I guess you could say that such beings are trapped in a world not their creation, and are forced to be predatory and merciless. But no act of survival can be judged as “evil” because the sum total of acts is what maintains the system.

In that world, our world, continents shift, explosions of lava occur, tidal waves wash over natural systems, and asteroids careen into the planet causing mass extinction — and it is all part of the natural processes. It is a terrible, horrifying reality when examined even superficially.

Who is there, in a World, barren of humans, to assess and assign “evilness”? Snd further: Who came up with this Terrifying Design? If indeed God created the world, what a strange and terrible god! There is a weird ironic logic to man’s condition therefore. We are parts-and-parcels of this World, and it is our own body (and body-mind problem) that is stuck here because there is no immediate alternative that we can seek. We must love ourselves (our body our existence) but we are forced to love the very cage that imprisons us.

And while I’m on the topic why is it so hard to pick up hot chicks anymore?! See, that’s what I’m talking about. (Don’t please get me going on this!).

But to pretend your view is just obvious, and that everybody already believes it...well, that's not convincing.

Oh I do not say everyone believes it. I am describing the world viewed by biologists, ecologists, physicists and geologists.

[Alexis Jacobi]

That fact needs explanation: how is it that we find ourselves in an "unbearable" world, if that's what we have? And any philosophy worth its salt has got to take that question very seriously. Traditionally, this is where the problem of evil appears: that in this world in which we live, both people, by their choices, and the natural order, by its inclusion of features like pain, suffering, loss, grief, entropy and death, are out-of-tune for what we long to have, and not particularly congenial to us as humans.

Well of course. And thus our conversation can begin. It took awhile but here we gloriously are …

[Alexis Jacobi]

GENERAL ANNOUNCEMENT

We did finally close on that island, and all plans are in motion to establish the Utopian Community to which all are cordially invited.

[Immanuel Can]

So the one thing that is clear is that if there are no such things as natural evils, the person who says so has a case to make.

And that would be you. Since I'm unresolved on that question, I'd be willing to hear your case. But to pretend your view is just obvious, and that everybody already believes it...well, that's not convincing

The only argument I make is that within ecological systems the very nature and structure of these systems is that, to live and exist, creatures are forced to kill and eat other creatures.

That's it?

Here's the problem with that argument: it fits both worldviews equally. If things are random, accidental, explosive, merely material, etc., it would be possible for us to find we live in a world full of accidents, hazards, miseries, etc. If, however, there had been a fall, then exactly the same thing would be true! So the evidence for your view is also just as useful for the contrary view.

Better evidence would be needed, for one or the other side to make a case.

However, we might add this: from a random, Materialist, accidental, etc. view of the origins, it would be very, very hard to explain why there is also so much in the way of things like order, law-likeness, coherence, life, symbiosis...and dare we say it?..joy, beauty and happiness, as well...in a world that had come into being accidentally.

But no act of survival can be judged as “evil”

Well, the truth, we should say, is even simpler: nothing whatsoever can be "judged as evil," in that world. "Evil" itself, is simply not a reality in that world, but is rather an imaginary category meaning, perhaps, "I don't like that," and no more than that.

Naturalistically speaking, why should any man be blamed for what he does? If sharks kill -- including other sharks, we might add -- without guilt, why should not man do the same?

Who is there, in a World, barren of humans, to assess and assign “evilness”?

Even if that world has humans in it, what can "evil" itself mean, except, "I don't like that"?

Snd further: Who came up with this Terrifying Design? If indeed God created the world, what a strange and terrible god!

That would be a good argument if the world as it now is were God's fault. But if He created it as good, and we, by rebelling against God, have perverted it, then on whom does the blame fall?

There is a weird ironic logic to man’s condition therefore. We are parts-and-parcels of this World, and it is our own body (and body-mind problem) that is stuck here because there is no immediate alternative that we can seek. We must love ourselves (our body our existence) but we are forced to love the very cage that imprisons us.

This goes back to Hinduism, Buddhism, Gnosticism and such other mystical systems. Their belief that the world is a "prison" for the "soul" is a way of explaining why things here are not all pleasant. It's also their reason for wanting to precipitate us OUT of this world, whether through enlightenment, transcendence, Nirvana, soul extinction...And it's the reason for their contemptus mundi, their teaching that detachment from this world is the prerequisite for such escape.

And while I’m on the topic why is it so hard to pick up hot chicks anymore?! See, that’s what I’m talking about. (Don’t please get me going on this!).

Hey, it's a good topic. It's not a pool I have to play in, but looking at it from the outside, it's certainly evident that finding a suitable mate in the West is getting more complicated.

But is that evil? What, in an accidental universe, promises a young man a suitable filly? And if nothing does, then nobody's at fault when he gets none.

I am describing the world viewed by biologists, ecologists, physicists and geologists.

Well, secular ones, perhaps. There is a very great number who are not.

[Immanuel Can]

I am describing the world viewed by biologists, ecologists, physicists and geologists.

Apparently not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15n4kKCELcg

[Dubious]

I am describing the world viewed by biologists, ecologists, physicists and geologists.

Apparently not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15n4kKCELcg

Stephen C. Meyer another theistic hypocrite who believes in the veracity of the bible, its biblical god and of course, Intelligent Design. In short, everything opposite to actual science.

[Immanuel Can]

I am describing the world viewed by biologists, ecologists, physicists and geologists.

Apparently not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15n4kKCELcg

Stephen C. Meyer another theistic hypocrite...

Yep. You're all about the ad hom. We know that.

[Dubious]

Apparently not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15n4kKCELcg

Stephen C. Meyer another theistic hypocrite...

Yep. You're all about the ad hom. We know that.

You would know more about that than I would.

As for Stephen C. Meyer he's at least smart enough to know that selling his theistic hogwash to idiots in terms of intelligent design is much more lucrative than examining creation without prejudice... meaning the processes which actually caused everything to be and develop from cosmology to biology.

Within that methodology of discovery there isn't a single god equation to be found anywhere. In the realms of science, god remains the least significant digit, an entity of near zero probability of no use whatsoever, reduced to a kind of mental constipation which only obstructs but never reveals except for our ability to create one in a thousand different ways.

A more perfect god denotation would be as a summary of nature's abstractions.