tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post7731415490040728037..comments2023-09-25T04:26:51.568-06:00Comments on The Barefoot Bum: Coming out week: The Alpha and the OmegaLarry Hamelinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-2599127573740880752007-08-13T15:39:00.000-06:002007-08-13T15:39:00.000-06:00There's a certain sort of commenter who has subjec...There's a certain sort of commenter who has subjects they feel strongly about and generally retain a few comments or essays they cut and paste into blogs and message boards on those topics. I get the feeling this is the case. Either that, or he's been thinking of this reply for a long, long time.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-53223993255293173652007-08-12T19:31:00.000-06:002007-08-12T19:31:00.000-06:00Jim Baxter: That's very... um... interesting. It's...<B>Jim Baxter</B>: That's very... um... interesting. It's even a tiny bit apropos to the topic.<BR/><BR/>Still and all, the length of this kind of essay is not at all suitable for comments, and the content is not all the sort of thing I usually publish. It would be more suitable for your own blog.<BR/><BR/>I'll let this comment stand, but anything else of this nature will probably be deleted on general principles. If you want to write a long essay, it would be better to post it on your own blog; if you think an essay is relevant to a topic, you're free to link to it in comments.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-8481654038566126212007-08-12T16:27:00.000-06:002007-08-12T16:27:00.000-06:00The Season of Generation- Choicemaker Joel 3:14 k...The Season of Generation- Choicemaker Joel 3:14 kjv <BR/> <BR/> Consider:<BR/> The missing element in every human 'solution' is <BR/> an accurate definition of the creature.<BR/><BR/> In an effort to diminish the multiple and persistent<BR/> dangers and abuses which have characterized the <BR/> affairs of man in his every Age, and to assist in the <BR/> requisite search for human identity, it is essential to <BR/> perceive and specify that distinction which naturally <BR/> and most uniquely defines the human being. Because <BR/> definitions rule in the minds, behaviors, and institutions <BR/> of men, we can be confident that delineating and com-<BR/> municating that quality will assist the process of resolu-<BR/> tion and the courageous ascension to which man is <BR/> called. As Americans of the 21st Century, we are oblig-<BR/> ed and privileged to join our forebears and participate <BR/> in this continuing paradigm proclamation.<BR/><BR/> "WHAT IS MAN...?" God asks - and answers:<BR/> HUMAN DEFINED: EARTH'S CHOICEMAKER<BR/> by James Fletcher Baxter (c) AD 2007 <BR/><BR/> The way we define 'human' determines our view of self,<BR/> others, relationships, institutions, life, and future. Many <BR/> problems in human experience are the result of false <BR/> and inaccurate definitions of humankind premised <BR/> in man-made religions and humanistic philosophies.<BR/><BR/> Human knowledge is a fraction of the whole universe. <BR/> The balance is a vast void of human ignorance. Human <BR/> reason cannot fully function in such a void; thus, the <BR/> intellect can rise no higher than the criteria by which it <BR/> perceives and measures values.<BR/><BR/> Humanism makes man his own standard of measure. <BR/> However, as with all measuring systems, a standard <BR/> must be greater than the value measured. Based on <BR/> preponderant ignorance and an egocentric carnal <BR/> nature, humanism demotes reason to the simpleton <BR/> task of excuse-making in behalf of the rule of appe-<BR/> tites, desires, feelings, emotions, and glands.<BR/><BR/> Because man, hobbled in an ego-centric predicament, <BR/> cannot invent criteria greater than himself, the humanist <BR/> lacks a predictive capability. Without instinct or trans-<BR/> cendent criteria, humanism cannot evaluate options with <BR/> foresight and vision for progression and survival. Lack-<BR/> ing foresight, man is blind to potential consequence and <BR/> is unwittingly committed to mediocrity, collectivism, <BR/> averages, and regression - and worse. Humanism is an <BR/> unworthy worship.<BR/><BR/> The void of human ignorance can easily be filled with <BR/> a functional faith while not-so-patiently awaiting the <BR/> foot-dragging growth of human knowledge and behav-<BR/> ior. Faith, initiated by the Creator and revealed and <BR/> validated in His Word, the Bible, brings a transcend-<BR/> ent standard to man the choice-maker. Other philo-<BR/> sophies and religions are man-made, humanism, and <BR/> thereby lack what only the Bible has:<BR/><BR/> 1.Transcendent Criteria and <BR/> 2.Fulfilled Prophetic Validation.<BR/><BR/> The vision of faith in God and His Word is survival <BR/> equipment for today and the future. Only the Creator,<BR/> who made us in His own image, is qualified to define<BR/> us accurately.<BR/><BR/> Human is earth's Choicemaker. Psalm 25:12 He is by <BR/> nature and nature's God a creature of Choice - and of <BR/> Criteria. Psalm 119:30,173 His unique and definitive <BR/> characteristic is, and of Right ought to be, the natural <BR/> foundation of his environments, institutions, and re-<BR/> spectful relations to his fellow-man. Thus, he is orien-<BR/> ted to a Freedom whose roots are in the Order of the <BR/> universe.<BR/><BR/> At the sub-atomic level of the physical universe quantum<BR/> physics indicates a multifarious gap or division in the<BR/> causal chain; particles to which position cannot be<BR/> assigned at all times, systems that pass from one energy<BR/> state to another without manifestation in intermediate<BR/> states, entities without mass, fields whose substance is<BR/> as insubstantial as "a probability."<BR/><BR/> Only statistical conglomerates pay tribute to<BR/> deterministic forces. Singularities do not and are<BR/> therefore random, unpredictable, mutant, and in this<BR/> sense, uncaused. The finest contribution inanimate<BR/> reality is capable of making toward choice, without its<BR/> own selective agencies, is this continuing manifestation<BR/> of opportunity as the pre-condition to choice it defers<BR/> to the natural action of living forms.<BR/><BR/> Biological science affirms that each level of life,<BR/> single-cell to man himself, possesses attributes of<BR/> sensitivity, discrimination, and selectivity, and in<BR/> the exclusive and unique nature of each diversified<BR/> life form.<BR/><BR/> The survival and progression of life forms has all too<BR/> often been dependent upon the ever-present undeterminative<BR/> potential and appearance of one unique individual organism <BR/> within the whole spectrum of a given life-form. Only the <BR/> uniquely equipped individual organism is, like The Golden <BR/> Wedge of Ophir, capable of traversing the causal gap to <BR/> survival and progression. Mere reproductive determinacy <BR/> would have rendered life forms incapable of such potential. <BR/><BR/> Only a moving universe of opportunity plus choice enables <BR/> the present reality.<BR/><BR/> Each individual human being possesses a unique, highly <BR/> developed, and sensitive perception of variety. Thus <BR/> aware, man is endowed with a natural capability for enact-<BR/> ing internal mental and external physical selectivity. <BR/> Quantitative and qualitative choice-making thus lends <BR/> itself as the superior basis of an active intelligence.<BR/><BR/> Human is earth's Choicemaker. His title describes<BR/> his definitive and typifying characteristic. Recall <BR/> that his other features are but vehicles of experi-<BR/> ence intent on the development of perceptive <BR/> awareness and the following acts of decision and<BR/> choice. Note that the products of man cannot define <BR/> him for they are the fruit of the discerning choice-<BR/> making process and include the cognition of self, <BR/> the utility of experience, the development of value-<BR/> measuring systems and language, and the accultur-<BR/> ation of civilization.<BR/><BR/> The arts and the sciences of man, as with his habits,<BR/> customs, and traditions, are the creative harvest of<BR/> his perceptive and selective powers. Creativity, the <BR/> creative process, is a choice-making process. His <BR/> articles, constructs, and commodities, however <BR/> marvelous to behold, deserve neither awe nor idol-<BR/> atry, for man, not his contrivance, is earth's own <BR/> highest expression of the creative process.<BR/><BR/> Human is earth's Choicemaker. The sublime and <BR/> significant act of choosing is, itself, the Archimedean <BR/> fulcrum upon which man levers and redirects the <BR/> forces of cause and effect to an elected level of qual-<BR/> ity and diversity. Further, it orients him toward a <BR/> natural environmental opportunity, freedom, and <BR/> bestows earth's title, The Choicemaker, on his <BR/> singular and plural brow.<BR/><BR/> Deterministic systems, ideological symbols of abdication<BR/> by man from his natural role as earth's Choicemaker,<BR/> inevitably degenerate into collectivism; the negation of<BR/> singularity, they become a conglomerate plural-based<BR/> system of measuring human value. Blunting an awareness<BR/> of diversity, blurring alternatives, and limiting the<BR/> selective creative process, they are self-relegated to<BR/> a passive and circular regression.<BR/><BR/> Tampering with man's selective nature endangers his<BR/> survival for it would render him impotent and obsolete<BR/> by denying the tools of variety, individuality,<BR/> perception, criteria, selectivity, and progress.<BR/> Coercive attempts produce revulsion, for such acts <BR/> are contrary to an indeterminate nature and nature's<BR/> indeterminate off-spring, man the Choicemaker.<BR/><BR/> Until the oppressors discover that wisdom only just<BR/> begins with a respectful acknowledgment of The Creator,<BR/> The Creation, and The Choicemaker, they will be ever<BR/> learning but never coming to a knowledge of the truth.<BR/> The rejection of Creator-initiated standards relegates<BR/> the mind of man to its own primitive, empirical, and<BR/> delimited devices. It is thus that the human intellect<BR/> cannot ascend and function at any level higher than the<BR/> criteria by which it perceives and measures values.<BR/><BR/> Additionally, such rejection of transcendent criteria<BR/> self-denies man the vision and foresight essential to<BR/> decision-making for survival and progression. He is left,<BR/> instead, with the redundant wreckage of expensive hind-<BR/> sight, including human institutions characterized by<BR/> averages, mediocrity, and regression.<BR/><BR/> Humanism, mired in the circular and mundane egocentric<BR/> predicament, is ill-equipped to produce transcendent<BR/> criteria. Evidenced by those who do not perceive<BR/> superiority and thus find themselves beset by the shifting<BR/> winds of the carnal-ego; i.e., moods, feelings, desires,<BR/> appetites, etc., the mind becomes subordinate: a mere<BR/> device for excuse-making and rationalizing self-justifica-<BR/> tion.<BR/><BR/> The carnal-ego rejects criteria and self-discipline for such<BR/> instruments are tools of the mind and the attitude. The<BR/> appetites of the flesh have no need of standards for at the<BR/> point of contention standards are perceived as alien, re-<BR/> strictive, and inhibiting. Yet, the very survival of our<BR/> physical nature itself depends upon a maintained sover-<BR/> eignty of the mind and of the spirit.<BR/><BR/> It remained, therefore, to the initiative of a personal<BR/> and living Creator to traverse the human horizon and<BR/> fill the vast void of human ignorance with an intelli-<BR/> gent and definitive faith. Man is thus afforded the<BR/> prime tool of the intellect - a Transcendent Standard<BR/> by which he may measure values in experience, anticipate<BR/> results, and make enlightened and visionary choices. <BR/><BR/> Only the unique and superior God-man Person can deserved-<BR/> ly displace the ego-person from his predicament and free<BR/> the individual to measure values and choose in a more<BR/> excellent way. That sublime Person was indicated in the<BR/> words of the prophet Amos, "...said the Lord, Behold,<BR/> I will set a plumbline in the midst of my people Israel."<BR/> Y'shua Mashiyach Jesus said, "If I be lifted up I will<BR/> draw all men unto myself."<BR/><BR/> As long as some choose to abdicate their personal reality<BR/> and submit to the delusions of humanism, determinism, and<BR/> collectivism, just so long will they be subject and re-<BR/> acting only, to be tossed by every impulse emanating from<BR/> others. Those who abdicate such reality may, in perfect<BR/> justice, find themselves weighed in the balances of their<BR/> own choosing.<BR/><BR/> That human institution which is structured on the<BR/> principle, "...all men are endowed by their Creator with<BR/> ...Liberty...," is a system with its roots in the natural<BR/> Order of the universe. The opponents of such a system are<BR/> necessarily engaged in a losing contest with nature and<BR/> nature's God. Biblical principles are still today the<BR/> foundation under Western Civilization and the American<BR/> way of life. To the advent of a new season we commend the<BR/> present generation and the "multitudes in the valley of<BR/> decision."<BR/><BR/> Let us proclaim it. Behold!<BR/> The Season of Generation-Choicemaker Joel 3:14 KJV<BR/><BR/> CONTEMPORARY COMMENTS<BR/> "I should think that if there is one thing that man has<BR/> learned about himself it is that he is a creature of<BR/> choice." Richard M. Weaver<BR/><BR/> "Man is a being capable of subduing his emotions and<BR/> impulses; he can rationalize his behavior. He arranges<BR/> his wishes into a scale, he chooses; in short, he acts.<BR/> What distinguishes man from beasts is precisely that he<BR/> adjusts his behavior deliberately." Ludwig von Mises<BR/><BR/> "To make any sense of the idea of morality, it must be<BR/> presumed that the human being is responsible for his<BR/> actions and responsibility cannot be understood apart<BR/> from the presumption of freedom of choice."<BR/> John Chamberlain<BR/><BR/> "The advocate of liberty believes that it is complementary<BR/> of the orderly laws of cause and effect, of probability<BR/> and of chance, of which man is not completely informed.<BR/> It is complementary of them because it rests in part upon<BR/> the faith that each individual is endowed by his Creator<BR/> with the power of individual choice."<BR/> Wendell J. Brown<BR/><BR/> "These examples demonstrate a basic truth -- that human <BR/> dignity is embodied in the free choice of individuals."<BR/> Condoleeza Rice<BR/><BR/> "Our Founding Fathers believed that we live in an ordered<BR/> universe. They believed themselves to be a part of the<BR/> universal order of things. Stated another way, they<BR/> believed in God. They believed that every man must find<BR/> his own place in a world where a place has been made for<BR/> him. They sought independence for their nation but, more<BR/> importantly, they sought freedom for individuals to think<BR/> and act for themselves. They established a republic<BR/> dedicated to one purpose above all others - the preserva-<BR/> tion of individual liberty..." Ralph W. Husted<BR/><BR/> "We have the gift of an inner liberty so far-reaching<BR/> that we can choose either to accept or reject the God<BR/> who gave it to us, and it would seem to follow that the<BR/> Author of a liberty so radical wills that we should be<BR/> equally free in our relationships with other men.<BR/> Spiritual liberty logically demands conditions of outer<BR/> and social freedom for its completion." Edmund A. Opitz<BR/><BR/> "Above all I see an ability to choose the better from the<BR/> worse that has made possible life's progress."<BR/> Charles Lindbergh<BR/><BR/> "Freedom is the Right to Choose, the Right to create for<BR/> oneself the alternatives of Choice. Without the possibil-<BR/> ity of Choice, and the exercise of Choice, a man is not<BR/> a man but a member, an instrument, a thing."<BR/> Thomas Jefferson<BR/><BR/> THE QUESTION AND THE ANSWER<BR/> Q: "What is man that You are mindful of him, and the son<BR/> of man that You visit him?" Psalm 8:4<BR/> A: "I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against<BR/> you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing<BR/> and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and<BR/> your descendants may live." Deuteronomy 30:19<BR/><BR/> Q: "Lord, what is man, that You take knowledge of him?<BR/> Or the son of man, that you are mindful of him?" Psalm<BR/> 144:3<BR/> A: "And if it seems evil to you to serve the Lord, choose<BR/> for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the<BR/> gods which your fathers served that were on the other<BR/> side of the river, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose<BR/> land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will<BR/> serve the Lord." Joshua 24:15<BR/><BR/> Q: "What is man, that he could be pure? And he who is<BR/> born of a woman, that he could be righteous?" Job 15:14<BR/> A: "Who is the man that fears the Lord? Him shall He<BR/> teach in the way he chooses." Psalm 25:12 <BR/><BR/> Q: "What is man, that You should magnify him, that You<BR/> should set Your heart on him?" Job 7:17<BR/> A: "Do not envy the oppressor and choose none of his<BR/> ways." Proverbs 3:31<BR/><BR/> Q: "What is man that You are mindful of him, or the son<BR/> of man that You take care of him?" Hebrews 2:6<BR/> A: "I have chosen the way of truth; your judgments I have<BR/> laid before me." Psalm 119:30 "Let Your hand become my<BR/> help, for I have chosen Your precepts."Psalm 119:173<BR/><BR/> References:<BR/> Genesis 3:3,6 Deuteronomy 11:26-28; 30:19 Job 5:23<BR/> Isaiah 7:14-15; 13:12; 61:1 Amos 7:8 Joel 3:14<BR/> Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 <BR/> <BR/> DEDICATION<BR/><BR/> Sir Isaac Newton<BR/> The greatest scientist in human history<BR/> a Bible-Believing Christian<BR/> an authority on the Bible's Book of Daniel<BR/> committed to individual value<BR/> and individual liberty<BR/><BR/> Daniel 9:25-26 Habakkuk 2:2-3 selah<BR/><BR/> "What is man...?" Earth's Choicemaker Psalm 25:12<BR/> http://www.blogger.com/profile/4744267 <BR/> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/2728/<BR/> http://www.choicemaker.net/<BR/> jbaxter@choicemaker.net<BR/><BR/> An old/new paradigma - Mr. Jefferson would agree!<BR/> (Alternative? There is no alternative.)<BR/> <BR/> + + +<BR/> <BR/>"Man cannot make or invent or contrive principles. He<BR/>can only discover them and he ought to look through the<BR/>discovery to the Author." -- Thomas Paine 1797<BR/><BR/>"Got Criteria?" See Psalm 119:1-176 <BR/><BR/>semper fidelis<BR/>Jim Baxter<BR/>Sgt. USMC<BR/>WWII & Korean War<BR/><BR/>Teacher, 5th Grade - 30 Wonderful years !<BR/> vincit veritas<BR/><BR/>"When you come to a fork in the road, take it!"<BR/> - Yogi BerraJim Baxterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11321262857855310609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-52636671532931892792007-08-03T04:31:00.000-06:002007-08-03T04:31:00.000-06:00Larry, you say: "James does not argue that his mor...Larry, you say: "<I>James does not argue that his moral behavior plus his lack of belief renders the existence of God impossible, but rather shows that belief in God is unnecessary.</I>" You're right, I confused those two (reading <A HREF="http://scienceblogs.com/bushwells/2007/07/maybe_the_grandest_nonsequitur.php" REL="nofollow">this post</A> also helped me to see that), thanks!Martin Cookehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11425491938517935179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-44107313630283998692007-08-02T13:00:00.000-06:002007-08-02T13:00:00.000-06:00I agree that Richelieu could be considered inapt. ...I agree that Richelieu could be considered inapt. Let us then insert Torquemada, or Bin Laden, or Rasputin. Need I go on? One must needs begin disowning all professed theists as liars when it comes to their faith, which is tenuous at best, or start engaging in a "No true Scotsman" defense, which is stupid.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-59926483493452953412007-08-02T05:27:00.000-06:002007-08-02T05:27:00.000-06:00Enigman: Your analogy was not only imperfect, but ...<B>Enigman</B>: Your analogy was not only imperfect, but also inapt: The essential characteristic—moral beliefs entailing from a position on theism—does not carry over from one side of the analogy to the other.<BR/><BR/>James' argument is <I>not</I> that atheism supports morality, his argument that one can be moral (for whatever reason) <I>despite</I> lack of belief in God.<BR/><BR/>James does not argue that his moral behavior plus his lack of belief renders the existence of God <I>impossible</I>, but rather shows that belief in God is <I>unnecessary</I>.<BR/><BR/>Ontological propositions under Metaphysical Naturalism are justified by <I>necessity</I> (in the sense contrasting with sufficiency) under simplicity: We <I>must</I> hypothesize X to create the simplest account for evidence Y. If X is unnecessary—i.e. if one can create a simpler or at least equally simple theory without X—the proposition "X exists" is unjustified.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-90722907961681226062007-08-02T04:42:00.000-06:002007-08-02T04:42:00.000-06:00James: The point may well be that Hitler and Stali...James: The point may well be that Hitler and Stalin were not necessarily atheists, but then was Richelieu <I>really</I> a theist, or did he just say the right things to get on in life?<BR/><BR/>Larry: My comparison was imperfect, but that does not make it <I>inapt</I> because an analogy that is perfect is not an analogy but an identity, whereas all higher thought is based upon analogies. And although religions claim to support morality, whilst atheism per se does not, an atheism that claims to be as good at supporting morality as the least political, the most theistic religions would necessarily be making such claims. And of course, in such debates atheists often point out that they belong to the latter group.<BR/><BR/>Regarding your second point I agree, it is a pretty good best, and I communicate with Naturalists rather than Fundamentalists precisely because you are far more rational than they are... except when, for example, you assert that I'm confusing necessity and possibility without giving any reason for that assertion.Martin Cookehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11425491938517935179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-78968354017136742992007-08-01T10:44:00.000-06:002007-08-01T10:44:00.000-06:00The whole Hitler/Stalin/atheist thing is, like Pas...The whole Hitler/Stalin/atheist thing is, like Pascal's Wager, wrong on so many levels, factual and logical, that it is purely a matter of taste on which level to focus criticism.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-15893324048286576392007-08-01T10:33:00.000-06:002007-08-01T10:33:00.000-06:00[M]aybe the reason why theists often mention Hitle...<I>[M]aybe the reason why theists often mention Hitler and Stalin is that atheists often point to bad "religious" people (e.g. in an incoherent attempt to show faith to be incoherent).</I><BR/><BR/>The point is rather that Hitler and Stalin are selected <I>erroneously</I>: Neither was an avowed, self-identifying atheist. They were, however, monstrous sociopaths.<BR/><BR/>As Larry points out, really, the sum lesson appears to be that, theist or atheist, we are all -- as a species -- capable of acts of profound kindness or unspeakable cruelty.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-62451003809799374712007-08-01T08:42:00.000-06:002007-08-01T08:42:00.000-06:00[M]aybe the reason why theists often mention Hitle...<I>[M]aybe the reason why theists often mention Hitler and Stalin is that atheists often point to bad "religious" people (e.g. in an incoherent attempt to show faith to be incoherent).</I><BR/><BR/>The comparison is inapt. Religion actually <I>claims</I> to support morality; that religious people are immoral is a valid evidentiary argument. Atheism by itself, on the other hand, is silent on the issue of morality; that atheists are immoral is therefore <I>not</I> a counterargument, any more than the immorality of atomic weapons is an argument against physics.<BR/><BR/><I>[A]t best [Dawkins'] argument shows only that a lot of religious doctrines do not, by themselves, convey moral blessings upon those who believe in them.</I><BR/><BR/>That's a pretty good best: Adherents of these doctrines specifically emphasize that the doctrines are necessary precisely because they do in fact convey moral blessings.<BR/><BR/><I>Secondly the materialistic view might expect weapon-using social animals (who finessed their own evolution via competition within man-made environments) to place an irrational value upon loyalty to tribal doctrines.</I><BR/><BR/>And that's <I>exactly</I> what we observe.<BR/><BR/><I>On a point of logic (the ontic/epistemic distinction), you are not necessarily living proof that God is not necessary, since if God exists then it is likely that you are influenced by him (e.g. via your conscience).</I><BR/><BR/>You're confusing necessity and possibility.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-71413776388564848822007-08-01T07:53:00.000-06:002007-08-01T07:53:00.000-06:00Great post, very thoughtful, and I'm in sympathy w...Great post, very thoughtful, and I'm in sympathy with your Mysterian position, but a couple of things: maybe the reason why theists often mention Hitler and Stalin is that atheists often point to bad "religious" people (e.g. in an incoherent attempt to show faith to be incoherent). For an example I read recently, Prof. Grayling, writing about Faith in his first book of essays, read a lot into the existence of Cardinal Richelieu (whence the response of "look who's talking"). Dawkins is right that those who claim to have God's special help ought to behave better, but at best his argument shows only that a lot of religious doctrines do not, by themselves, convey moral blessings upon those who believe in them (assuming that the bad ones were not just lying about being believers, of course).<BR/><BR/>Secondly the materialistic view might expect weapon-using social animals (who finessed their own evolution via competition within man-made environments) to place an irrational value upon loyalty to tribal doctrines, and indeed it hardly seems to care a great deal when it does so itself (e.g. favouring string-theorists in fundamental physics, or set-theorists in pure maths). On a point of logic (the ontic/epistemic distinction), you are not necessarily living proof that God is not necessary, since if God exists then it is likely that you <I>are</I> influenced by him (e.g. via your conscience).Martin Cookehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11425491938517935179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-36636153047006345352007-07-31T23:15:00.000-06:002007-07-31T23:15:00.000-06:00Funnily enough, just before reading this I had pos...Funnily enough, just before reading this I had posted the following comment on Aphra Behn's interesting blog "Brief Candles":<BR/><BR/>You ask: “How can morality have merit if it is merely a human artefact?” and “How can justice matter if the victims can neither know nor care?”<BR/><BR/>I’ve never understood the ‘difficulty’ posed by these and similar questions. Morality and justice can and should matter to those of us who are alive in the here-and-now. They are indeed innately human concepts [the product of evolution?], but none the less real because there is no Sky Pixie handing out celestial brownie points in a future life.<BR/><BR/>Far from finding this daunting, I experience it as a great comfort as my own end [extermination?] approaches. I can think of nothing better after death than a dreamless sleep instead of some celestial airport terminal. Meanwhile, it’s up to me - and you - to do our best while we’re still here to make the world a better place according to our inner lights. That’s what individual responsibility - which the religious duck so neatly - is about.<BR/><BR/>See aphrabehn.wordpress.comanticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-60415672715913148552007-07-31T19:10:00.000-06:002007-07-31T19:10:00.000-06:00I think "Perezoso" is Ruritanian for "coward".I think "Perezoso" is Ruritanian for "coward".Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-73528602683740268302007-07-31T19:06:00.000-06:002007-07-31T19:06:00.000-06:00Um, WTF? Why the internet asshattery, Anonymous? ...Um, WTF? Why the internet asshattery, Anonymous? At least when I'm a dick, I sign my name to it. Coward.<BR/><BR/>Steelman, thanks for the nice comment.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-7283220104608208882007-07-31T17:03:00.000-06:002007-07-31T17:03:00.000-06:00I enjoyed your post, James. I'm feeling inspired t...I enjoyed your post, James. I'm feeling inspired to write something like it, beyond the autobiographical bits and pieces with which I've so far littered the comments sections of the blogosphere. What you've written might be subtitled The Hope and Testimony of a Humanist. Feel free to use that as the title of your upcoming Great American (insert literary genre here). =)<BR/><BR/>Anonymous, and a few others I've met on the Net, could take a lesson in succinctness from <A HREF="http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Sanford-and-Son-You-Big-Dummy-Posters_i1371281_.htm" REL="nofollow">Fred Sanford</A>; it would save valuable electrons.Steelmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09612062887585525213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-17514981123041528192007-07-31T15:49:00.001-06:002007-07-31T15:49:00.001-06:00"Nothing terrifies me so much as the thought of my..."Nothing terrifies me so much as the thought of my mind ceasing to exist."<BR/><BR/>If thought is an indication of a thinking mind, there's nothing in your wanker of a blog, or this maudlin memoir, to suggest that yours has yet entered into the state of being you desire.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-14978521220606446852007-07-31T15:49:00.000-06:002007-07-31T15:49:00.000-06:00"Nothing terrifies me so much as the thought of my..."Nothing terrifies me so much as the thought of my mind ceasing to exist."<BR/><BR/>If thought is an indication of a thinking mind, there's nothing in your wanker of a blog, or this maudlin memoir, to suggest that yours has yet entered into the state of being you desire.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com