Philosophy Now Forum

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jan 02, 2023 2:46 pm I suspect Harbal is thinking of God as an extra- mental being.

Unless someone else mentions God, I don't usually think of God at all. Despite popular opinion to the contrary I spend quite a lot of time thinking about this world we live in, and the reality behind the apparent; it never occurrs to me to consider God might be somewhere in the answers to my questions.

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Jan 02, 2023 3:05 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jan 02, 2023 2:46 pm I suspect Harbal is thinking of God as an extra- mental being.

Unless someone else mentions God, I don't usually think of God at all. Despite popular opinion to the contrary I spend quite a lot of time thinking about this world we live in, and the reality behind the apparent; it never occurrs to me to consider God might be somewhere in the answers to my questions.

I've noticed with a cautious elation that even in the last few days you have been a bit transformed! You feel that tingly effervescence, eh? That's called thought Harbal. Heaven only knows now where you'll be in a week! Not to say a year.

Philosophy, Allah, a cabal of egg-headed scientists, evolution ... whatever ... be praised!

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Jan 02, 2023 3:20 pm
I've noticed with a cautious elation that even in the last few days you have been a bit transformed! You feel that tingly effervescence, eh? That's called thought Harbal. Heaven only knows now where you'll be in a week! Not to say a year.

I thought our business was concluded, Alexis, but it seems not.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Jan 01, 2023 8:58 pm Me? Well, as with most things, I am no less drawn and quartered in regard to race. I have my own "existential, rooted subjectively in dasein" political prejudices but racism itself is still so wide-spread who really knows where and when it stops being genes and starts being memes.

More to the point [mine] there's your own existential trajectory here. What personal experiences and relationships did you have that started you off down the racialist road. If that's how you would describe yourself.

And what demonstrable proof do you have that your own political prejudices here are not just prejudices at all...but can in fact be confirmed by, say, science?

Typically, you misunderstand. Why? See my wonderful post to Sister Lacewing, that glittering ephemeral wingèd papilio of a Dawning Age . . .



What started me on that road (of thinking about the order of ideas that concerns Renaud Camus and, in different ways Jonathan Bowden) was becoming open to examining other idea-structures that have become operative in this strange and confusing present.

The mistake people make is to reflexively think that I am here recruiting. Not at all. But note that any set of ideas that does not seem kosher, that seems *immoral*, if and when presented, can only be seen as the hand of the Devil reaching in an contaminating the Good People.

I have thought a great deal (more) about race, ethnicity, cultural dikes, idea-structures and also hierarchies, as a result of living permanently in South America (Colombia). And I am certainly unafraid to share what I see (which is quite different from selling a perspective or being an activist for a cause).

One thing I said recently: that when we operate out of idealisms why is it that what is created (often) tends to show deterioration and decadence? The opposite of what we say we intend?

Any clue?

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Jan 02, 2023 3:27 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Jan 02, 2023 3:20 pm
I've noticed with a cautious elation that even in the last few days you have been a bit transformed! You feel that tingly effervescence, eh? That's called thought Harbal. Heaven only knows now where you'll be in a week! Not to say a year.

I thought our business was concluded, Alexis, but it seems not.

Did we have business? I don't feel any richer . . .

tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Jan 02, 2023 9:13 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jan 01, 2023 5:17 pm

tillingborn wrote: ↑Sun Jan 01, 2023 8:38 amI have made the point before: the standard of evidence you demand for the theory you wish to be true is very low.

The theory you are advancing is Evolutionism. For it, you have no sufficient transitional forms...

Your bar for "sufficient" is set very low...

It's not "my bar." It's the claims of Evolutionism itself that are at fault.

You complain about my beliefs, and caricature them in order to dismiss them, even while not really knowing what I believe. I'm not offended: that's a standard tactic, of course. But your own problem remains: if my beliefs were 100% wrong, that would not do one thing to fix the problems in Evolutionism, for they are inherent to Evolutionism itself.

...the chronology and direction of the fossil record so far discovered is sufficient to show that human beings, along with every other organism on the planet, are the product of evolution.

Well, that statement is manifestly incorrect. If you were right, we'd have abundant transitional forms of proto-humans of many, many kinds; and since, according to Evolutionism, there is no principle that militates against variation, there would not only be multitudinous transitional fossils in the ground, but multitudinous variations of quasi-humans ambling about on the surface of it, each some sort of variation on the "humanoid" theme, and none the same.

These things, you do not see. That is does not trouble Evolutionists is simply testimony to how credulously and enthusiastically they want to embrace a theory for which there is no sufficient evidence, the lack of which is truly glaring.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jan 01, 2023 5:17 pm...nor any explanation for things like triadic symbiosis, nor any sufficient dynamic to warrant progressivist enthusiasms, among other things.

You are throwing mud at the walls again.

No. Each is a specific problem that Evolutionism cannot respond to. And I have mentioned another: the lack of a principle regulating what variations of species are possible within a generally "survival of the fittest" context. For it is surely obvious to you that there are many variations that could represent an advance even on modern humanoids. "Survival" would be improved by some sort of biological "back-up camera" in the head, for example; or humanoids with wings would be more fit to survive than those without. Yet we see no evidence at all of such variations -- so there must be a regulating principle in effect as to which "survival-enhancing" modifications are allowed: yet we have no scientific account at all of any such force.

There are far too many holes in Evolutionism for us to embrace it uncritically...and far less reason to grant it exemption from examination. And that's the very kindest way to say it.

What do you understand of triadic symbiosis? How do you know there is no explanation that is compatible with evolution?

We can see that it exists. That's not even a debate. But if you think you can explain how all three organisms in such a relationship can "evolve" into a triadic interdependency, covering all the transitional phases, go ahead.

Take this one, and see what you can do with it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkiL-v4X8w8. Good luck: you're going to need it.

And what on Earth have "progressivist enthusiasms" to do with evolution?

They account for the acceptance of a theory that lacks scientific warrant, but is still proclaimed "true" and immune to critique, to a degree that no other scientific theory ever is. Evolutionism is the Atheist's sacred cow, because it promises warrant for believing that the universe and all its creatures can have come into being by pure chance.

But it's also beloved for another reason: the "progressivist" reason; namely, that is implies that human beings are every day, automatically, moving towards being "better" or "higher" or "more evolved" than before. It puts an imaginary teleological arrow on an account of human history that can give no account of how such a thing could exist -- and thus allows its acolytes to believe that the world is naturally "progressing" in good directions, and even without our help. (The other highly unsavoury implications of the "progressivist" view, however, such as that it makes us merely the unlucky dross of evolutionary advance, or that it rationalizes the sufferings and deaths of millions or even billions as merely inevitable, go generally unremarked.) It's the optimistic basis for progressivist enthusiasms, thus.

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Jan 02, 2023 9:21 am The theory of evolution makes sense, even though it still has unanswered questions, but every branch of science has unanswered questions, and that's how science works; that's what drives it forward. The only real problem with evolution theory is that it undermines your beliefs.

No, that's not the problem: the problem is that Evolutionism is accepted with too many "unanswered questions" in place. And when such a thing happens, we need to ask the speakers, "Why are you so keen to set as if conclusive a theory which you know has significant holes in it still? Why not take it as merely a provisional possibility -- the way we do with other hole-beset scientific theories -- instead of trying to declare it certain and depart the field with no further examination?" And we should go on to ask, "If you know Evolutionism still has holes to be filled, how is the goal of filling them with new evidence served by cutting off debate? How will you improve the theory without listening to alternate theories, or accepting any theory-contradicting data?"

Put this way, you can see that Evolutionism is not a scientific certainty at all, even though many people would like us to think it was (a remarkable fact, in itself). It is, instead, a protected, pet ideology, which skeptics are taking on for reasons that it is supportive of other ideological positions they wish to take. There are surreptitious motives involved...people want to believe Evolutionism BECAUSE it rationalizes things like Atheism, Progressivism, Marxism, and Egoism, among others, not because the theory itself is some sort of scientific certainty. Like Papist authority, Evolutionism must not be questioned because a network of other beliefs require it to be true, not because its authority is anywere near being beyond legitimate question or scientific necessity.

But since you know that Evolutionism still has "unanswered questions," you can see that phenomenon for yourself. And you rightly say that science is "driven forward" by the raising of skeptical questions and the seeking out of additional evidence. One would have to think, therefore, that the proponents of Evolutionism either a) do not know what you know, that there are holes to be filled still, or b) are keen to gloss over the holes in order to preserve the theory, even if that means that Evolutionary biology will be inhibited from being "driven forward" thereby. But why are they so?

I don't worry about Evolutionism "undermining my beliefs," because I'm aware of the holes. I see how many and how large they actually are. My concern would be with the de facto gloss of false "inerrancy" that gets attributed to the theory by ideologues, because (on the opposite side) that affords artificial support to theories and ideologies of other kinds that I perceive to be delusory.

It's not what Evolutionism allegedly undermines that should concern us; it's what it logically supports (such as giving warrant to various kinds of Nihilistic or Social Darwinist ideologies, to naive Progressivism, or to the ideologies of human eugenics, for example.)

Dubious wrote: ↑Mon Jan 02, 2023 10:27 am If you ever get a chance to communicate with Astro Cat again ask her if what I wrote is incorrect.

"Lateralling the ball before the tackle," are we?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 02, 2023 4:36 pm
No, that's not the problem: the problem is that Evolutionism is accepted with too many "unanswered questions" in place.

What does it matter?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 02, 2023 4:37 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Mon Jan 02, 2023 10:27 am If you ever get a chance to communicate with Astro Cat again ask her if what I wrote is incorrect.

"Lateralling the ball before the tackle," are we?

Afraid to know the facts that Adam and Eve aren't part of that domain?

There is also no such thing as 'theory of evolution'. There is only evolution having long ceased to be a theory.

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Jan 02, 2023 5:22 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 02, 2023 4:36 pm
No, that's not the problem: the problem is that Evolutionism is accepted with too many "unanswered questions" in place.

What does it matter?

Well, it matters because of this, as I said above:

It's not what Evolutionism allegedly undermines that should concern us; it's what it logically supports (such as giving warrant to various kinds of Nihilistic or Social Darwinist ideologies, to naive Progressivism, or to the ideologies of human eugenics, for example.)

But it also matters for two other reasons: one, that it is also used to shore up Atheism and to fend off concerns about God...and in that sense, is a crutch skeptics use to prevent dealing with the truth. The second reason it matters is because it always matters whether what one believes is the truth, or merely a comforting delusion -- a point on which, among very few, Dawkins and I both heartily agree.

And Dawkins and I would agree on another thing: that any theory that is artificially exempted from critique is not genuinely being treated as scientific, but has become a kind of ideology, instead. For the sake of science, then, we should not grant special quasi-Papal authority to any theory, including Evolutionism; for to do so is to guarantee that particular theory will never be "driven forward" or improve scientifically. It will remain a dogma...shallow, underdeveloped, unsubstantiated and most likely errant as well. Thus no good scientist should allow this sort of exemption. And as much as Dawkins hates Christianity, I would suggest that for the sake of science he would decline to grant even Evolutionism that exemption...assuming he loves science as much as he hates Christianity, which is a broad assumption, I confess.

Now, in our solipsistic "therapeutic" culture, it is considered the height of moral behaviour to allow others to believe whatever they want, regardless of truth or falsehood. "What business is it of anybody else's what they believe?" goes the mantra, "Mind your own business, and let them have their delusions as they please." But that's a counsel of uncaring, or callous indifference, and of they-can-all-go-to-hellness, and not a creed to which a Christian can cotton. So as a Christian, I have a moral obligation to do my best to point out to the self-deluding that they are, in fact, taking shelter in a burning house, so that they may realize they have to seek a better kind of shelter ("house" here being a metaphor for "worldview," of course).

tillingborn wrote: ↑Sat Dec 31, 2022 9:17 am . . .

I hope to get to your post soon. Meantime, look over my last post to soaring & fluttery Lacewing since it seems that there are ideas in it that I'd also share with you (about ideological coercion, the effect of propaganda and attitude-engineering). Off for a few more days pajareando . . .

tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Jan 02, 2023 9:13 am What do you understand of triadic symbiosis? How do you know there is no explanation that is compatible with evolution?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 02, 2023 4:19 pm We can see that it exists. That's not even a debate. But if you think you can explain how all three organisms in such a relationship can "evolve" into a triadic interdependency, covering all the transitional phases, go ahead.

Take this one, and see what you can do with it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkiL-v4X8w8. Good luck: you're going to need it.

On the other hand, from the Biblical perspective, the "snail zombies" discussed in the video are easy to explain:

Approximately six thousand years ago, God not only created snails, but at the same time also created Leucochloridium worms. And for whatever reason that only God knows, he intentionally imbued the Leucochloridium worms with the will to invade the snail's brain in order to take control of the snail's body.

Easy-peasy!

(And, of course, Adam came up with the name "Leucochloridium," or at least its equivalent in "Edenese" )
_______

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 02, 2023 5:43 pm Now, in our solipsistic "therapeutic" culture, it is considered the height of moral behaviour to allow others to believe whatever they want, regardless of truth or falsehood. "What business is it of anybody else's what they believe?" goes the mantra, "Mind your own business, and let them have their delusions as they please." But that's a counsel of uncaring, or callous indifference, and of they-can-all-go-to-hellness, and not a creed to which a Christian can cotton. So as a Christian, I have a moral obligation to do my best to point out to the self-deluding that they are, in fact, taking shelter in a burning house, so that they may realize they have to seek a better kind of shelter ("house" here being a metaphor for "worldview," of course).

In a nutshell this is why I will never give up on you, Immanuel. It is alarming to you, and seems 'wrong', that I say I bring a therapy that would be of much benefit to you. You can only laugh at the idea. "Impossible!" you exclaim.

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?

To describe EXISTENCE is impossible. I think that when mystics of all religious structures confront EXISTENCE they recognize it tongue-ties them. Some overcome that with mystic outgushings ... but these are essentially poetic utterances. They are subjective, personal reflections on an experience that cannot be shared merely through language (but language can stimulate something in other people, just as poetry does).

Today is the second day of January 2023. Today is the day that Immanuel will, once again, roundly circumnavigate the direct question asked by those hungry for the TRUTH he preaches.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Jan 02, 2023 2:59 pm
You see? You see what I sense I am up against?

Yes, you are up against an increasing number who are catching on to what a dick head you are. Now this is not meant as a personal insult, and I point it out merely to illustrate how the internet has provided a platform for no end of extremists and crackpots. So, again, I stress that you must not take this personally, and the very last thing I would want to imply is that you are an over blown, self-important wind bag, who is intoxicated by the sound of his own voice, so please, let me dispel any such thoughts on that score.