Christianity

[Harry Baird]

Darwin knocked Aristotelian forms theory into the long grass.

Hmm. It seems to me that (Neo)Darwinianism is flailing. Darwin himself flagged various possibilities that he was concerned would falsify his theory if they turned out to be the case, which they have. It is doubtful that even Darwin would be a Darwinian in the modern age.

That is news to me. If I have time I will try to Google natural selection as the origin of species.

That might be fruitful. My understanding is that, in particular, Darwin was aware that his theory would be falsified if the massive lack of transitional fossils that was the case in his day was not overcome - and it hasn't been, it has only worsened given the time we've had to find them, and in particular given the very sudden (in evolutionary terms) appearance of new forms during the so-called Cambrian explosion.

On top of that, the knowledge of the cell was very crude in Darwin's time, and with our new knowledge of the incredible functionality and even intelligence of cells, including genetics (unknown in Darwin's time), it is highly implausible that the incredible nature of biology can be explained by a slow, gradual, blind process of "evolution" - much less how to explain how that process could have bootstrapped itself from, essentially, a puddle of pre-biological chemicals.

[Harry Baird]

Interesting. [I see fit to criticise your explication of the sub-text of my response, but I still couldn't give a fuck about actually addressing the elephant in the room.]

I see. Well, there we have it.

[Immanuel Can]

Interesting. [I see fit to criticise your explication of the sub-text of my response, but I still couldn't give a fuck about actually addressing the elephant in the room.]

I see. Well, there we have it.

Same thing. Harry writes a script for himself, then insults it...and hopes it will stand as a rational rebuttal for what I've pointed out.

I guess "there" we DO "have it."

[Harry Baird]

[Yeah, but nah. Elephants are just too big and scary for me to address.]

We know, Immanuel Can, we know.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Now, who disagrees with you? How about Jurgen Habermas (author of "The Legitimation Crisis")? What about Hans Blumenberg (author of "The Legitimation of the Modern Age")? And in specific, with regard to the difficulties of legitimating "justice" as a concept, what about Rawls, Dworking, Sen or Wolterstorff, each of whom wrote at least one volume trying to deal with the question you say is "a figment of your imagination"?

Can you cite where any of these theologians and philosophers speak about *eternal Hells*? and defend the notion of eternal punishment for those who do not, cannot, of don't *believe*?

The principle issue that has been discussed is this solitary notion.

What you have done is tricky and devious but typical of your tactics. You are asserting that Harry (and others of us) because we take issue with the injustice of an eternal hell and of never-ending punishment, that we must therefore disagree with other platforms or idea-structures held by Habermas, Blumenberg or the others you cite.

What those men believe, and how they expressed their view on the evolutions of Christian conceptions, and certainly ethics in contemporary society, has no bearing on the sole issue that has been discussed here for many pages.

You are entirely devious in your methods of argument. You are thoroughly untrustworthy. In brief you are a fraud.

[Harry Baird]

Can you cite where any of these theologians and philosophers speak about *eternal Hells*? and defend the notion of eternal punishment for those who do not, cannot, of don't *believe*?

Of course not. Such elephants are too big and scary for Immanuel Can to even acknowledge, even when they're right in the very middle of his home.

[Alexis Jacobi]

. . . and hopes it will stand as a rational rebuttal for what I've pointed out.

You have not pointed out anything! You seem only to repeat an assertion, located in Biblical scripture, that there will be an eternal hell with no possible escape nor ending of torturous punishment for those who can't, don't or won't 'believe'.

You do not have a view of your own in any sense. Your argument is only a statement: "I believe there is an Eternal Hell for those who do not believe."

It begins and it ends there.

[Harry Baird]

Still waiting for an answer to this, Immanuel Can:

By the way, where in the Bible is justice defined and "legitimated"? C&V, please. Are you able to provide the very "legitimation" you accuse me of failing to provide?

[Harbal]

That might be fruitful. My understanding is that, in particular, Darwin was aware that his theory would be falsified if the massive lack of transitional fossils that was the case in his day was not overcome - and it hasn't been, it has only worsened given the time we've had to find them, and in particular given the very sudden (in evolutionary terms) appearance of new forms during the so-called Cambrian explosion.

On top of that, the knowledge of the cell was very crude in Darwin's time, and with our new knowledge of the incredible functionality and even intelligence of cells, including genetics (unknown in Darwin's time), it is highly implausible that the incredible nature of biology can be explained by a slow, gradual, blind process of "evolution" - much less how to explain how that process could have bootstrapped itself from, essentially, a puddle of pre-biological chemicals.

If you don't mind my saying, that sounds like a weak attempt to discredit something simply because you would prefer not to believe it.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Lucem Post Nubila Reddit

"The sun breaks through the clouds and illuminates"

… modern disenchantment does not mean the disappearance of God or the neutralization of theology. Indeed, there is a theology of modern disenchantment: divine is whatever holds the position of the sun in this picture, the smiling source of the light that illuminates a world in which objects appear at rest under the sun. God or reason — both make for a world that appears clearly and distinctly to the man who looks at it. It is as if a certain form of enlightenment (the principle of rendering reason) shared a common structure of bringing things to light with a certain form of religion (the God who shines a light on all things). This format or way of organizing our picture of the world is modern disenchantment ...

[Harry Baird]

If you don't mind my saying, that sounds like a weak attempt to discredit something simply because you would prefer not to believe it.

It's really not though. I started out, despite being a theist, being also a believer in (Neo)Darwinian evolution - simply because it was the dominant paradigm in biology, and I tend to accept expert opinion by default, unless I find a reason to doubt it.

Having been exposed to a variety of material which has caused me to more than simply "doubt" the validity of (Neo)Darwinian evolution, I have come to (albeit provisionally) disbelieve in it. I am more than happy to share some of that material with you if you like.

[Harbal]

If you don't mind my saying, that sounds like a weak attempt to discredit something simply because you would prefer not to believe it.

It's really not though. I started out, despite being a theist, being also a believer in (Neo)Darwinian evolution - simply because it was the dominant paradigm in biology, and I tend to accept expert opinion by default, unless I find a reason to doubt it.

Having been exposed to a variety of material which has caused me to more than simply "doubt" the validity of (Neo)Darwinian evolution, I have come to (albeit provisionally) disbelieve in it.

So are you now open on the subject, or do you have an alternative. ?

[Harry Baird]

So are you now open on the subject, or do you have an alternative. ?

I have an alternative: that "physical", biological life was designed and implemented by "non-physical" intelligence(s).

I quote "physical" and "non-physical" only because I think that it's all - physical or non-physical - just some sort of energy in the end, and thus in some sense the distinction is not all that meaningful (but only in *some* sense - there is *also* a sense in which the distinction means a great deal).

[Harbal]

I have an alternative: that "physical", biological life was designed and implemented by "non-physical" intelligence(s).

I quote "physical" and "non-physical" only because I think that it's all - physical or non-physical - just some sort of energy in the end, and thus in some sense the distinction is not all that meaningful (but only in *some* sense - there is *also* a sense in which the distinction means a great deal).

As far as I'm aware, although I admit that I'm not aware of much, there isn't really any doubt that all life on Earth evolved from something very simple. Does that fit in with your favoured version of events?

[Harry Baird]

As far as I'm aware, although I admit that I'm not aware of much, there isn't really any doubt that all life on Earth evolved from something very simple. Does that fit in with your favoured version of events?

Not so much, no, but it really depends on what you mean by "evolved". I don't think species originated via (Neo)Darwinian evolution, but, potentially, *designs* were evolved as time went on by the intelligence(s) which created them.