Natural Failures

An interesting set of works:

Nature, as Defined Today, Cannot Be All There Is

Is the triumph of post-modern naturalism inevitable? We are told that few philosophers today would wish to be considered non-naturalists. That’s true, but it is not the whole truth. For example, even though Darwinism is naturalism’s biology, growing numbers of biologists today can safely be known as non-Darwinists — a development that was not expected two decades ago. So if we think the direction is reversible in principle, we might begin by assembling reasons for doubt, perhaps starting with questions. Three come to mind:

1. Why should a system that results in absurdities be considered correct? Why should that fact not count against its likelihood?

[…]

2. Why should we trust a system that demands that we give up reason?

[…]

3. Naturalism is hitting a number of barriers. It is committed to propositions not supported by evidence.

[…]

So why should a metaphysic like naturalism rule if evidence slowly accumulates against it?

One reason is confidence in confidence. The naturalists expected to win, not to face questions or stubborn opposition among educated people while they deal with frustrating findings. That possibly accounts for authoritarianism. A Nature paper from 2012 and a PNAS paper from 2017 warn that education is not the answer because many well-educated people doubt establishment views. In fact, more education leads to more doubt. A recent British study found that significant numbers of atheists were not naturalists. One widely touted solution has been to discourage discussion of the issues in educational settings, which does not seem to have helped naturalists much.

Another reason is that naturalism accords well with nihilistic popular culture, if not with the evidence. Jim Carrey summed it up best in a recent interview: “There is no me, there’s just things happening” and “You’ve got to admit, this is completely meaningless.” The entertainment industry was mildly perturbed, but it needn’t be. That’s precisely what naturalists say from the lectern; Mr. Carrey simply listened. And the naturalists’ problem is, no matter what happens to science, they have nothing to move on to or back down to.

Nihilistic cultures die of their own hand.

Christians must move to inherit: this means getting serious about obedience to God. We can start with the First Commandment….

(Including that ‘other’ first commandment, to be fruitful and multiply, and raise your children well.)


For extra info, see the article Now Naturalism Rots Science from the Head Down. An excerpt:

Post-truth” was the Oxford Dictionaries’ word of the year for 2016. The term “post-fact” is also heard more often now. Oxford tells us that “post-fact” relates to or denotes “circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.”

Post-fact has certainly hit science. Pundits blame everyone but themselves for its growing presence. But a post-fact and post-truth world are implicit and inevitable in the metaphysical naturalist view (nature is all there is) that is now equated with science and often stands in for it.

Let’s start at the top, with cosmology. Some say there is a crisis in cosmology; others say there are merely challenges. Decades of accumulated evidence have not produced the universe that metaphysical naturalism expects and needs. The Big Bang has not given way to a theory with fewer theistic implications. There is a great deal of evidence for fine-tuning of this universe; worse, the evidence for alternatives is fanciful or merely ridiculous. Put charitably, it would not even be considered evidence outside of current science.

One response has simply been to develop ever more fanciful theories. Peter Woit, a Columbia University mathematician, is an atheist critic of fashionable but unsupported ideas like string theory (Not Even Wrong, 2007) and the multiverse that it supports. Recently, Woit dubbed 2016 the worst year ever for “fake physics” (as in “fake news“). As he told Dennis Horgan recently at Scientific American, he is referring to “misleading, overhyped stories about fundamental physics promoting empty or unsuccessful theoretical ideas, with a clickbait headline.”

Fake physics (he links to a number of examples at his blog) presents cosmology essentially as an art form. It uses the trappings of science as mere decor (the universe is a computer simulation, the multiverse means that physics cannot predict anything…). Conflicts with reality call for a revolution in our understanding of physics rather than emptying the waste basket.

Woit blames the Templeton Foundation for funding this stuff. But Templeton caters, as it must, to an audience. Perhaps a more pressing issue is this: The need to defend the multiverse without evidence has led to a growing discomfort with traditional decision-making tools of science, for example, falsifiability and Occam’s razor. And metaphysical naturalism, not traditional religion, is sponsoring this war on reality.

Advertisements

Hopeless Atheists

The 2018 Global atheist Reason to Hope conference was cancelled in Australia, officially due to lack of interest. Odd: you’d think that the enemies of Christ would have a substantive program after a comprehensive (but not total) cultural victory over Christians in the  West.

But their Progressive hopes, centred as it was on

  • Darwinian racial/eugenic supremacy,
  • technological ease,
  • consequence-free sexual pleasure,
  • and free government stuff

either

  • died in disgrace with the Nazis and the slaughter of World War I,
  • took away power, instead of centralizing it in their hands (technology),
  • destroyed their future (sexual sterility),
  • or has actually crumbled into dust (Communism) or is visibly aging (Socialism/Welfare State/Keynesian).

At various levels, they got all they wanted on Earth, being as murderous or as arbitrarily as they please. And now, all they can do is retreat into fantasy, even as naturalism – a.k.a. atheistic materialism – is ever more established as the official State Religion of the West… a religion that (unlike the Abrahamic religions, and even to a lesser extent the Dharmic religions) utterly dispenses with the need for any evidence, whatsoever.

What they can do is kill.. preferably under legal cover of the state (as per Communism, or abortion today).

Rarely do they kill as individuals – as their hope died out a long time ago, with the fall of Communism, they refuse to put their own lives on the line. (Excluding the more uneducated, undisciplined, and hate-filled members). But you can wait as long as you wish, their will be no militant atheistic condemning the murders of a militant atheist.

(In contrast, you can find a militant Muslim, condemning the murders of a fellow militant Muslim, as Al Qaeda condemned the Islamic State and GIA in Algeria.)

From Taking Atheism Seriously:

When you consider the Sutherland Springs killer’s motives — including his hatred of Christians — it’s obvious how his atheist belief provided the grease to turn his hate into action. What does he have to fear? When he is dead (it was clearly a suicide mission), he will have no pain, no suffering, no accounting, according to atheist beliefs.

If you wonder why militant atheists of a more docile variety (needless to say, the vast, vast majority in our society) don’t contemplate the atrocities of their less docile co-(ir)religionists, this is one reason: Any honest reflection on atheist belief would make it very clear that atheism, taken seriously, offers no reason not to kill innocents that you hate. Atheism is much more than disbelief in gods. Atheism is the explicit denial of objective morality and the explicit denial of ultimate accountability.

This is the reason that atheism is the most violent ideology in human history: some atheists take atheism seriously.

Indeed, such random, mindless murders as the church shooting in Texas and the killing of their own unborn children (and thus their genetic/Darwinian future), every single day, demonstrates comprehensive hopelessness and failure… despite their cultural victories.

This impending failure and despair is far more rooted in their willful rebellion against God, than anything the Spiritless (and thus powerless) Western Church has done!

The Establishment’s Middle Ages

From Quora:

Kevin Chiu, Learned history from reading and games

 

Nope. That has to be one of the biggest misconceptions about European history still prevalent today.

The fall of the Western Roman Empire wasn’t a catastrophe which set technological and societal progress back by a thousand years. Life wasn’t worse in the Middle Ages compared to that during the Roman Empire. The Middle Ages were actually superior to Early Modern Europe in some ways. I’ll try to disprove some of the commonly held misconceptions about the Middle Ages.

Low life expectancy

Studies show that in the Middle Ages, the average life expectancy was 30–40 years. That piece of data is very misleading. The life expectancy was dragged down by high infant mortality rates caused by disease. The average adult life expectancy was in the 60s or 70s.

Terrible hygiene

A lot of people believe this because many hygiene facilities present in the Roman Empire such as aqueducts and baths were not present in the Middle Ages. That is incorrect. Most cities had public bathhouses which originated from or were inspired by Roman baths (they were called stewes in England). Everyone could afford to take at least a weekly bath. Smelling good and being clean was considered the correct etiquette. Everyone washed their hands before meals and brushed their teeth regularly. People did stop going to bathhouses during the Black Death because they rightly feared getting infected.

A medieval bathhouse

The Church burned thousands of women accused of being “witches” and suppressed science

This is very wrong. The mass witch-hunts occurred in the 16th-17th century, which is in Early Modern Europe, not in the Middle Ages. The Inquisition also happened after the Middle Ages. The Church normally did not suppress science. In fact, the Catholic Church was the main sponsor of scientific development and was valuable in preserving several Roman and Greek works. You can find a list of technological advancements from Medieval Europe in here: Medieval technology – Wikipedia

People had to drink alcohol because water was dirty

No. Although beer and wine were the common beverage, it was because the common knowledge in the Middle Ages was that alcoholic beverages promoted good health. People still drank water from time to time. People also knew how to tell between clean water and dirty water. Water was added to wine to dilute it, disproving this myth entirely.

The Middle Ages were filled with famine

The Middle Ages actually produced much more food that the Roman Empire ever did in their western provinces. Agricultural innovations, warmer climate, and the rise of feudalism increased crop yields to levels never seen before. It was the Black Death and the Hundred Years’ War that decreased the peasant population to tend to farms, causing the myths of great famines in the Middle Ages.

Most of the terrible things that happened in the Middle Ages were outside of their control. The Black Death, Mongol invasion, Vikings, etc. Urban development stalled after the Fall of the Western Roman Empire because there simply wasn’t enough manpower or population to sustain the Roman urban culture. Feudalism also suddenly seemed to be the best idea. War was bad, but most periods of history were equally if not more violent. Massacres of heretics and non-Christians were not a normal occurrence. That is why events such as the massacre of the Jewish Rhineland population and the Albigensian Crusade are so unique and notable.

There are the stereotypes and prejudices that the media enjoys selling to you, and there is reality.

P.S.: Only sociologists are more atheistic as a profession than ‘accredited’ journalists are. Not physicists, not mathematicians, not even all those Darwinian biologists. First sociologists, then establishment journalists.

Just for your information.

Media Accusations as Updated Maoism

Again, from Joseph Foreman

There is a lot of soul searching and “ethical honesty” as people look at Trump and now Roy Moore’s apparent sins.

This is why I will never concede a word of agreement with their accusers:

When Mao took over China the Red Guard in every hamlet, middlesex, village , and farm and metropolis met individually with every Chinese comrade in the New China. They interrogated them around the clock until they had a signed confession from every Chinese person. They confessed to plots to assassinate Mao, to being part of their neighborhood plot to assassinate the police and governor of their province or town. They incriminated themselves and everyone they could think of before the interrogations were through. Absurd stuff?

My father was held prisoner by these men and listened to these interrogations going on night and day and spent a good chunk of his time in the same interrogation process — which served as intensive training in the nuances of the local idiom and accent as well as the idiom of actual Maoist-Leninist-Marxist applied doctrine. I’ll be narrating his book “Red Man” analyzing in the words of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao exactly what their doctrine is and how it is applied.

You ask, “how could they get them to confess to such outrageous things without torture?”

Easily. Just get them exhausted after 12 hours to agree to the most ridiculous little thing that might even be true along the lines of, “I didn’t wash my hands this morning and my failure in hygiene threatens the health and well-being of the people’s health.” They would make a dozen or so of these little confessions, most of them true, then stretch them and within an hour they would confess to every evil thing, attempts to assassinate leaders, murder neighbors, affairs with their neighbor’s children, unthinkable stuff.

It is where he learned presuppositional apologetics — the principle of antithesis — and it saved his life. I learned apologetics from him. By the time I read Van Til years later I had already learned most of it from a man whose life depended on it rather than just his career.

With Christians they would start with simple things that are theologically true. Then things that were arguable, then things that were false. Once the agreement began it continued in a flood. He once remarked that he was surprised to discover that sometimes even something as true as, “Jesus is God!” is a lie in the mouth of these men. To agree with the Devil on anything is to discover that you have not found common ground but that you have agree to the precise opposite of what you thought.

God give us wisdom.

After that, if the authorities had political enemies, or just a need to remind people who jerks their chain, they would march someone, often completely innocent so no one would feel safe, through town with signs of their written confession held on poles over their heads. The people would fill up the courtyard where my father was held, outside his window actually, they would ask the people what such traitors deserved. The people would shout death death death. If they didn’t shout loud enough the Red Guard would take someone from the crowd who “clearly was a co-conspirator” with the doomed man or woman. Everyone would shout with more enthusiasm, they would kneel the “confessed killers” down and blow their brains out on the ground to fulfill the righteous demand of the people.
\
No! when an epistemologically self-conscious leftist — as our media is becoming — asks you to agree on anything including theology, including the moral failings of someone who is smiting them hip and thigh, the answer is, “there is literally nothing which you say which is true enough to agree on because you will only use the truth — ethical truth, theological truth, legal truth, factual truth to prove a greater lie.”

So how do you not deny Christ? Do you say, “Jesus is not God?”

Instead say, “I will not agree with you, but I will tell you that Jesus is God and He is coming to judge all who reject his rule.”

So they say, “See you agree with us?” I agree that, “If Jesus is declared God with out you declaring submission to him, then you have not declared anything I agree with.” if they will not accept the 2nd half of the statement their statement of the first half is false. (This is just an example of the logic of disagreement, not a real life conversation. Don’t let it sidetrack the point.)

Back to the issue before us, accusations against anyone the media believes to be conservative:

Refuse to give an inch of agreement to anyone they accuse without a trial. Then, if guilty, you don’t agree with the accusers, you agree with the trial.

The first thing these people do when they have power is deny a fair trial.Just the think of all the fair trials you have seen in the teeth of political correctness? It doesn’t get any better when they are in power creating their utopia with a chainsaw.

So don’t start appeasing their lies today by joining their discussion and putting on social trial anyone they accuse without a real trial. That is all part of where they are going. And by these petty agreements they draft you to pull their load closer to the edge.

By the time you discover that I am right — if you will not take my word for it — they will have come for you and your children whom you have set up for them to take.

Never let these people come for any person or idea or fact that you believe is important even when agreement with them seems obvious. Its as obvious to you as the worm on a hook is obviously good food to a fish.

We do not agree with the United Snakes of American Media on any point.

The mainstream media are, indeed, self-consciously enemies of Christ, and therefore of Christians. And therefore of reality itself: as is bound to happen, when you despise the Author of reality.

But their strength withers, and their flowers fade. This isn’t 1930s Russia, or 1960s China. Living out some half-wit re-enactment of the past is a sign of failure and sterility, not vigour and power. Pretending that there are only four TV channels, all radio is State Radio, and that the Internet doesn’t exist is a sign of delusion, a fever dream of a fading ideology.

It reminds me of a not-so-distantly related development, the cancellation of the atheistic 2018 Global Atheist convention, Reason for Hope:

Apparently, Ayaan Hirsi Ali pulled out. Richard Dawkins and Salman Rushdie were expected, as were other atheist luminaries.

The cited reason was poor ticket sales.

Poor ticket sales don’t just happen. Is it possible that the public is just plain losing interest in “bad boy” atheism, whether it is represented by profane Darwinian bloggers or high class hatemongers (religion as a “virus of the mind,” etc.)?

Apart from professional obligations, who cares to argue with these people? The natural instinct of a sensible person is to, paraphrasing Oscar Wilde, suddenly recollect a subsequent engagement and, as inconspicuously as possible, find another table…

A dying power flails about, pushing the right sort of hate speech, imitating though control strategies fit for the 1960s.

Leave the dead to rot.

Stand with the Living God. Obey Him, grow His Kingdom, and enjoy the fruits of victory. Bless and nurture the firstfruits in the here and now, reap the full harvest in the coming decades, and exult God as He grants to you the great rewards of eternal life with Him!

Keep Hammering!

Joseph Foreman wrote:

Rep Party nullifies the election if Roy wins?
And we’re worried about Russians?
The people’s vote means nothing in what countries?

The Powers that Be understand what a REAL threat is… and then take off the gloves.

On the other hand, the more stronger and the greater the frequency of these systematic, radical challenges are, the more likely that the wall will be shattered.

No matter where you are, or your place in life, KEEP HAMMERING!

Liberals: Naturally Intolerant

[L]iberal intolerance represents not the self-undermining of liberalism, but a fulfillment of its essential nature. When a chrysalis shelters an insect that later bursts forth from it and leaves it shattered, the chrysalis has in fact fulfilled its true and predetermined end. Liberalism of the purportedly tolerant sort is to militant progressivism as the chrysalis is to the hideous insect. — Adrian Vermeule

There is only one God… and liberals despise Him to the very core of their being, as He is insufficiently righteous in their eyes.

“You don’t do what *I* what you to do!” they cry, “And there is no God higher than *ME!*”

While it is right and just to mock the little liberal godlings, it’s important that we don’t inadvertently do the same thing they do. We must elevate the commands of God above conservative, even above libertarian, desires. Always remember:

HE commands.

WE obey.

Praise God, in Christian societies there is no noxious poses of tolerance while endlessly working to proscribe the Wrong Sort of opinions, beliefs, cultures, and lifestyles. This fact, alone, is an excellent reason to drive today’s liberal fools from their positions of power.