Search This Blog

Tuesday, February 08, 2011

What is right? What is "a right?"



Walter Williams asserts that society is trying to change the definition of "a right." Of course he is right!  But how do you know the difference between right and wrong?   The US Government was founded by those who accepted the Judeo-Christian ethic as a standard of right and wrong.  Many people in government today have abandoned those precepts and a pushing a Social Darwinian ideal instead.   Take from the earners, give to the non-earners, turn everyone into serfs thereby to be ruled by elitists.  Socialism.  It doesn't work.  It starts with the wrong suppositions.  It ignores right and wrong. 

Some ignorant people have recently asserted that Nazi Germany under Hitler was a Christian nation!  I've already published the testimony of a woman who has been there and done that and had the t-shirt.  Nazi Germany was a Socialist Fascist state that tried to eradicate Christianity and kill off all the Jews.  Hitler believed much of what he read of three important sources:  Darwin, Marx and Nietzsche.   By combining parts of what those three authors asserted,  Adolf Hitler believed he needed to have a socialist state ruled by a dictatorship that would, by killing off the weak and lame and otherwise handicapped and all who were not Aryans by blood he would be making the German Nation into the land of Ubermensch, capable and deserving of the rule over all the world.  He believed it because his worldview dictated his decisions.  Some doofs have claimed that Hitler supported Christianity and banned Darwin's books.   But in fact he derided Darwin's timeline and wanted to force rapid speciation among humanity by killing off those he considered weak or politically incorrect.  He lulled Christians into thinking he supported them, then put the kibosh on the church and took all the young people to be trained as Hitler Youth.   He only let the old people go to church and if any of them spoke out against him, off to an Auschwitz with them!

Worldview is something you all have.   But some of you allow it to cloud your reasoning,  Particularly vexing is the intrusion into science.  Naturalistic materialism is a point of view, a religion if you will.  Consider this recent comment:

"Hm, I had a look. The front pages of talkorigins and truorigins are quite telling - note the derision on trueorigins right off the bat:

"Advocates of evolutionary theory practice evolutionism when they routinely invoke (and dogmatically defend) naturalistic and humanistic philosophical presuppositions, and arbitrarily apply those presuppositions to their interpretation of the available empirical data. This fact (which many of them zealously deny) severely erodes evolutionists’ credibility, and effectively disqualifies them from any claim to objectivity in matters concerning origins and science"

Now what was that complaint about "the strange mindset of Darwinists, who posit that anyone who believes in creation cannot be "a scientist"?

Here we have creationists positing that anyone who subscribes to methodological naturalism in their scientific work is eroding his or her credibility and effectively disqualifies themselves...

A strange mindset indeed, huh? "


Not at all.  Unless you are talking about the Darwinists who artificially insert their religion into the scientific method and then pretend nothing happened!   Men like Bacon and Newton and Brahe and Maxwell would never have put up with the idea of limiting scientific inquiries to suit the religious preferences of atheists!  They all just looked at the evidence and allowed it to lead them to whatever conclusions that evidence suggested.  Then they would posit a hypothesis.  If they discovered a process that could be tested and retested by others and get the same results, it would be a theory and if said theory held up over time and testing it would be called a law.  By such methods we got laws of motion and gravity and biogenesis and magnetism and electricity, by such men physics and calculus were founded.   Such men used observation and testing and history and common sense and logic to drive them.  Never would they have said that only supernatural outcomes could be considered and never would they have said that only naturalistic outcomes could be considered.

If you limit yourself to naturalistic materialism, that is your right, for it only impacts you.    When you impose your religion on others, you over-reach your rights and you are intruding on the rights of others.   Thus the NCSE is an organization that violates the rights of students to get a balanced education.  They are censors trying to defend their religion, nothing more.  Secular Humanism has become our state religion despite the Founding Father's hope that such a thing would happen.   Many of them fled Europe to avoid such a thing.

It is a sad situation when here in the USA we have found ourselves saddled with a state religion all over again, Secular Humanism, a religion that demands adherence to Naturalistic Materialism.   But so many are blinded to this, like that commenter, who cannot see his own worldview showing.   How do we make the blind see?
If you think the scientific method includes naturalistic and materialistic boundaries then you are ignorant of both science and history. 

PROVERBS 6:16-19

16 There are six things the LORD hates,
   seven that are detestable to him:
    17 haughty eyes,
      a lying tongue,
      hands that shed innocent blood,
    18 a heart that devises wicked schemes,
      feet that are quick to rush into evil,
    19 a false witness who pours out lies
      and a person who stirs up conflict in the community. 

A group of us guys who are currently reading (along with whatever else they are reading) one proverbs for every day of the month are hopefully getting some read good from it.   Proverbs is an interesting book that seems quite meaningful to Christians and other believers in God whereas it will often seem incomprehensible to God-despisers.  The above is pretty clear to anyone, though, I would think.   If you are a person who supports evil or is comfortable lying or thinks he/she is superior to others, God has a problem with you.   It isn't my job to judge people.  I can be mistaken because I cannot see into your thoughts and intentions whereas God can.   I hope you don't see yourself listed above...

Here in the USA we supposedly believe the following:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Any of you who feels stifled by being mere commenters here could start their own blog.   It isn't a hard thing to set up.  You could ramble on for ten thousand words on abiogenesis if you liked there.  Please feel free to start your own blog.   Then you will be able to determine what direction your blog takes.   Maybe no one there will even mention God?

PROVERBS 7: 1-5

1 My son, keep my words
   and store up my commands within you.
2 Keep my commands and you will live;
   guard my teachings as the apple of your eye.
3 Bind them on your fingers;
   write them on the tablet of your heart.
4 Say to wisdom, “You are my sister,”
   and to insight, “You are my relative.”
5 They will keep you from the adulterous woman,
   from the wayward woman with her seductive words. 

One of my most important areas of concern involves making the point that the Bible is a unique book.   It is God's message to mankind.   It is only a science book in those areas it addresses specifically and it is a history book from the perspective of God, primarily focused on the land promised to His People and what His People did and did not do.  It certainly addresses philosophy/morality/ethics and is in fact the foundational resource for American laws as expressed in the Constitution.

There is just no room in the Bible for evolution.   There is no need for it.   There is no purpose for it.  It is diametrically opposed to God and Who He is.   Macroevolution is a random and undirected process never actually observed that involves no intentionality.   Creation is intentional and directed but it is also not observed.   You have to have faith to  believe in either side of the story.   The Darwinist side has enough bluster to fuel an entire season's worth of hurricanes but precious little actual evidence.   The Creationist side has more evidence but fewer religious adherents.   Intelligent Design scientists put aside the metaphysical aspects and study based on evidence and publish findings based on evidence.  This is why I often publish material from them, even those who are unclear on the source of all the intelligence and design.  

Bottom line on that thought is that it takes great faith to believe that all this stuff (Universe) and information and design and life just all happened by pure dumb luck.   Every process and system in organisms, all features, like wings and eyes and digestive tracts and gecko feet and bumblebee dances and symbiotic relationships and the explosive bombadier beetles and so on and so forth were happily lucky breaks.   And all these lucky breaks kind of all happened at once in the Cambrian era, when all life form styles are represented.   I mean, if you are a Darwinist you believe that statistically impossible occurrences have been so commonplace as to be totally pedestrian.  I am surprised they haven't banned statistical analysis yet since it tells us that macroevolution  is impossible but since you are a Darwinist then statistical analysis would have to be impossible.   So I applaud your faith even as I deplore your science.

Luke 17:2
It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble.

I take my responsibility to my students seriously.  Much study goes into what I teach them and where I suggest they obtain information.  You may as well give up on any attempt to divulge personal information on any kids I teach now or have ever taught, any I have worked with in youth groups in churches or Boy Scouts or Indian Scouts or Royal Rangers, period.   Not happening, never happening.   They get enough anti-God propaganda forced upon them in colleges without outside help.   High school curriculum includes enough dumbed-down science and history as it is.   If I can teach students to think critically and "beware the sound of one hand clapping" then I will have done something worthwhile.   I expect my students to believe in a Creator God and I expect them to become Christians.   I encourage this, but not by brow-beating or emotionalism or anything else but good old evidence and logic.   

It is a wonderful thing to know that many of my students have become missionaries or teachers or preachers or military men or women,  have been married and starting their own families, started businesses and so on.   Teaching them about God and moral absolutes and real science seems to pay off in the real world.   Teaching them to think critically about everything including their faith and why they hold to it works!  

21 comments:

Jon Woolf said...

Have you learned nothing about science, history, or logic, young padawan?

"Many people in government today have abandoned those precepts and a pushing a Social Darwinian ideal instead. Take from the earners, give to the non-earners, turn everyone into serfs thereby to be ruled by elitists."

That's not "social darwinism." It's the exact opposite.

"I mean, if you are a Darwinist you believe that statistically impossible occurrences have been so commonplace as to be totally pedestrian."

[yawn] It's statistically impossible for anyone to ever win the Powerball. Happens all the time.

Chaos Engineer said...

The US Government was founded by those who accepted the Judeo-Christian ethic as a standard of right and wrong.

Well, sort of. They did follow some Judeo-Christian ethics, like "Don't kill or enslave other Judeo-Christians".

But they rejected the Divine Right of Kings, in favor of the pagan Greco-Roman idea that government derives its authority from the consent of the landowning male citizens. They also enshrined a "Right to Heresy"...people can even say things like "Jesus was the Messiah" or "Jesus wasn't the Messiah" without getting burned at the stake. (These are some of the most wicked imaginable heresies in different parts of the Judeo-Christian community.)

I've also got to disagree that people have gotten less moral after Darwin. In fact, I think that 21st Century Pluralistic Democracies are the most moral societies that humanity has ever created. (That's not to say that they're all that good, it's just that other societies have been even worse.)

If you disagree, can you name a more moral society? (I hope you're not going to say the USA in any year before 1866.)

radar said...

Chaos, have you researched the founding of the USA? The primary resource used and quoted by the founders was the Bible. They took some of the law and practices established in England as a template but the 34% of the quotes of the Founding Fathers came from the Bible. In order, the others:

Baron Charles de Montesquieu
Sir William Blackstone
John Locke
The Magna Carta

One could envision the Senate and the House as mimic to England's House of Lords and Commoners but in the USA both branches were to be elected.

It was an earthshaking phenomenon, this USA. It was a federation of states forming a Republic, not a democracy, and it doesn't spring from Greece.

21st Century USA is far inferior to the Republic the Founders envisioned and far less moral. Morally we have been going downhill since before I was born. I cannot imagine what you, Chaos, consider morality but we murder our children legally, we have far more broken homes than our grandparent's generation and more addictions.

SD > As far as Powerball goes, your ignorance is massive here. There is an algorithm used to create lotteries which some have understood and exploited, which is why there is a woman in Texas that has won FOUR of them and a crime boss who has over a million in winnings in scratch-off games.

To win at Powerball is a small chance, whereas the formation of one living cell from matter is one to the power of a number greater than all the atoms in the Universe even assuming it could happen. But biochemical reactions put up unscalable walls to formation of DNA or RNA even without a cell. The molecular level has destroyed Darwinism and the cellular level has destroyed Darwinism for now we have a good idea how things work within organisms and for this to have happened by accident even once is ludicrous.

On the other hand, Powerball is by comparison so likely that, if life formed by chance once we would all have won Powerball several times by now. You just don't know what you are talking about.

Jon Woolf said...

"One could envision the Senate and the House as mimic to England's House of Lords and Commoners but in the USA both branches were to be elected."

History remains not your strong suit. In the original Constitution, Senators were chosen by the state legislatures.

Regarding the Founders: a slim majority of them were deists, a quirky variety of the Judeo-Christian tradition that accepted most of the moral and ethical concepts of the Abrahamic faiths, but rejected the notions of prophets, miracles, and an active, interventionist God

Anonymous said...

SD > As far as Powerball goes, your ignorance is massive here. There is an algorithm used to create lotteries which some have understood and exploited, which is why there is a woman in Texas that has won FOUR of them and a crime boss who has over a million in winnings in scratch-off games.

This point is collateral to the whole post, but it really illustrates Radar's arrogance: powerball is not really exploitable. Some scratch off games, while attempting to appear random, aren't-- there are ways to beat them(improve your odds of winning) by just viewing the ticket. Powerball is not a scratch off game. Powerball involves random balls being chosen, and is, in fact, random. So, Radar's comment, which was a reply to Jon's statement "It's statistically impossible for anyone to ever win the Powerball," is pretty uninformed. Or, as Radar might put it, Radar's ignorance is massive.


lava

highboy said...

"Regarding the Founders: a slim majority of them were deists, a quirky variety of the Judeo-Christian tradition that accepted most of the moral and ethical concepts of the Abrahamic faiths, but rejected the notions of prophets, miracles, and an active, interventionist God"

It doesn't matter if they were all crack smoking satan worshippers, it doesn't detract from the verifiable history that our Framers by and large used Christ's teachings as the base for a moral government. As far as being a deist goes, the acknowledgement of a Creator is the point radar is making.

Anonymous said...

It doesn't matter if they were all crack smoking satan worshippers, it doesn't detract from the verifiable history that our Framers by and large used Christ's teachings as the base for a moral government.

This is something I don't know enough about. Does anybody (on either side of things here) have any good resources for me to read?

I know a lot of early codes (pre-constitution) were heavily influenced by christianity. But as far as the founding of the US and the constitution, I'd like to know more what influences there were (beyond the obvious thou shalt not kill, steal, bear fall witness....which we don't really need the bible to tell us).

lava

radar said...

Lava, the quotes from Founding Fathers are summarized here:

http://www.partyof1776.net/p1776/influences/contents.html

Everyone knows that the Bible was the literary manna of the day. The Bible was the literature that the common man used to become literate. Most of the first universities were formed to produce well-schooled pastors. So the Bible as a source is no surprise.

The three men next sourced were all believers in a Creator God and Blackstone in particular was a source whose words resonate in our founding documents.

The Magna Carta was a big step for freedoms and therefore often referred to by the Founders although they did not intend to remake another England.

You might find this Library of Congress site useful:
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/

Also here:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Founding_fathers

radar said...

I did a long study on the Founding Fathers a few years back. I do not recall if I published it on this blog or one of the other sources I do or did frequent? To be fair, back in the 1700's sermons were being printed in newspapers as a common practice, as Christians had both founded the Colonies and they were the preponderance of the colonial population. So the Founding Fathers quoting scripture at length was a sign of a learned man and not just a Christian. Many of them might be labeled Theists or even Deists, as Highboy mentioned.

Primary point being that the Bible Judeo-Christian ethic was foundational to their thinking, writings and the formation of the nation, far more than Plato's Republic or other sources.

As for the lottery games and Powerball, I detect naivete. Rather than argue about it, I leave commmenters to their own research. Are there patterns in lotteries being run by the states? Is there a way to game the system? I will give you about a week and then give you some answers.

radar said...

I added the Party of 1776 to my links. It is a Christian site, admittedly, but it has copied many of the original documents of the men who made America, from the Pilgrims to the early years of the Republic.

You can there access all sorts of official documents and famous pamphlets, speeches, declarations and so on and so forth. Not all of them are by Christians but are included for their value as history such as writings by Thomas Paine.

I am happy to note that one of my ancestors and one of his brothers, being Richard and Francis Lee, were signatories of the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation. On my mother's side my kin were here before here was the USA and they helped form it. No doubt there were brigands and dolts amongst my forebears as well but on my father's side we are descendants of the "Great" Malcolm and thereby related to the actual MacBeth.

So if anyone seeks to use the "no true Scotsman" argument I am at least part Scot and proud of it, part English and proud of that, as well as Austria/German and Irish and Cherokee and probably some others mixed in along the way.

As it happens the majority of Scots alive in this United States are related in some way to one of the descendants of Malcolm, as back in those days the chieftans and their families lived better lives and usually longer than the average person and so they dominate within the populace of Scotland. So I have been told by a Clan expert. Therefore if you have any Scottish blood you are likely descended from kings. Yippee! Where's my mouldering castle?

Jon Woolf said...

Lava,

"But as far as the founding of the US and the constitution, I'd like to know more what influences there were"

It's really impossible to say, because there are at least three possibilities for any given position taken by the Founders:

1) they took a Christianity-compatible position because they were Christians and took it directly or indirectly from Christianity

2) they took a Christianity-compatible position because reason and logic told them it was a good one, its origins notwithstanding

3) they took a Christianity-compatible position because, having been immersed in an almost-exclusively-Christian culture for their entire lives, it never occurred to them to think any other way.

Anonymous said...

"I mean, if you are a Darwinist you believe that statistically impossible occurrences have been so commonplace as to be totally pedestrian."

So far all the "statistical impossibilities" I've seen presented by creationists have been based on sloppy assumptions and data that we simply can't put our hands on. It's just a game of trying to spin really big numbers for rhetorical purposes.

Anonymous said...

"It doesn't matter if they were all crack smoking satan worshippers, it doesn't detract from the verifiable history that our Framers by and large used Christ's teachings as the base for a moral government."

There's not exactly a huge difference between the morality of a Christian humanist and a secular humanist.

The atheist position on Jesus is that he was a great moral leader, a kind of Gandhi of that time. The precepts of the Sermon on the Mount represent a good way for humans to live, regardless of the surrounding mythology of Christianity.

"As far as being a deist goes, the acknowledgement of a Creator is the point radar is making."

Is the acknowledgement of a Creator crucial to the founding of the United States? If something like the founding of the US happened today, would it be possible for a democratic revolution to take place without believing in, say, YEC?

scohen said...

" You may as well give up on any attempt to divulge personal information on any kids I teach now or have ever taught"

Since I have not asked for personal information about any of the people you've taught, and the method of communication that I've suggested will divulge no personal information, I'll assume that was directed elsewhere.

Radar, you have a choice here, you can either broker safe, anonymous communication between Kevin and I, or cease to use him to back up your (incorrect) statements about Hartnett's bogus math and genetic algorithms creating information.

"I encourage this, but not by brow-beating or emotionalism or anything else but good old evidence and logic."

Then you have absolutely nothing to fear. I'm not going to proselytize to him or anything of the sort. I'm going to talk about math and computer science.

...and both Kevin and I will send you the entire exchange so you have proof that I am being honest right now.

Here's hoping you come down on the side of free and open discussion.

Anonymous said...

As for the lottery games and Powerball, I detect naivete. Rather than argue about it, I leave commmenters to their own research. Are there patterns in lotteries being run by the states? Is there a way to game the system? I will give you about a week and then give you some answers.

For some reason, I doubt you will give some answers(not just some reason, I guess- probably because you abandon your series when the comments poke too many holes in your theories). And please remember we are talking about powerball, not scratch offs. I want to know how you think you can game the system.

Radar, I respect a man who concedes when he is wrong much more than a man who will fight tooth and nail even when he knows he is wrong.

So we should expect your answers around February 17? I will keep that in mind.

lava

highboy said...

"There's not exactly a huge difference between the morality of a Christian humanist and a secular humanist."

We're discussing American history. But for what its worth, its not even an accurate statement. It implies that there is some kind of official "secular humanist" moral code, which there isn't. Any one that claims to abide by secular humanist morals will still have a wide range of values that differ from other secular humanists. Its as subjective as anything out there.

"The atheist position on Jesus is that he was a great moral leader, a kind of Gandhi of that time. The precepts of the Sermon on the Mount represent a good way for humans to live, regardless of the surrounding mythology of Christianity."

Again this fails. There is no "atheist position" on Jesus. Some atheists don't even believe He exists. Others don't believe He said what He said, others think exactly as you stated above. There is no official "atheist position".

"Is the acknowledgement of a Creator crucial to the founding of the United States? If something like the founding of the US happened today, would it be possible for a democratic revolution to take place without believing in, say, YEC?"

The Framers speak for themselves. They believe in inalienable natural rights that are inherent in every human being, but that the only way they were absolute if is an absolute authority stood behind it. Not sure about the YEC question, but its a good question.

Anonymous said...

So Radar tells us he teaches his students to "think critically"... but is worried that a simple discussion of genetic algorithms and calculus is going to lead the poor little lamb astray.

The wheels are really coming off this little YEC blog lately...

First Radar had to delete comments on his own blog because he couldn't win an argument, now he's standing square in the way of an open discussion between two computer guys because he's afraid of the outcome.

All this after years and years of complaining about "Darwinist" censorship, about how "Darwinists" supposedly don't allow open debate because they're scared and so on.

Radar has become his own enemy.

radar said...

A little cheese with that whine?

I don't delete comments except for bad language.

I won't share personal information of my students.

You have no right to contact my students and I am not going to make that happen no matter what you say, so give it up.

The readership of this blog is growing, so the wheels must be coming off so that it can fly.

scohen said...

FYI Radar,
As far as I can tell, no one claimed that it was our collective 'right' to contact your 'student'.

All I said is you have a choice --you can either foster an open discussion between Kevin and I, or you can quit using him as an expert.

It's clear that you've made your choice, now please stop mis-characterizing our argument.

scohen said...

"I won't share personal information of my students"

What personal information have we asked for?

It's a simple question, please answer it.

Anonymous said...

"I don't delete comments except for bad language."

You know that this is not true, and yet you say it. That makes this a lie. You recently deleted a bunch of comments on your blog, and it wasn't for bad language.

"I won't share personal information of my students."

Nobody asked you to, and you can easily facilitate an open discussion with "Kevin" simply by having him comment on this blog or contact scohen with a disposable e-mail address.

scohen is being open, you are not, and you are not giving Kevin the opportunity to be open.

"You have no right to contact my students and I am not going to make that happen no matter what you say, so give it up."

Again, that's not what was being asked, and you are pointedly ignoring the alternatives.

"The readership of this blog is growing, so the wheels must be coming off so that it can fly."

And do you have any reason to believe that it is people on your side of this argument that are coming in in greater numbers?