Ok, what is the reason for eye cancer in children?
the reason for cancer tends to be the same in children as in adults,e.g. the malfunction of a cell turning selfish, e.g. refusing to restrict the growth of its individual self for the benefit of the system it belongs to. It is the basis of evolution that systems who’s elements turn selfish tend to collapse.
yes, the underlying reason is an accumulation of random genetic mutations and environmental conditions. So more randomness (unluckness) than causality?
We carry a constant burden of cancer cells with us that tend to normally die away quietly, only sometimes they fail to die of. Considering that the physical death of humans is a fairly randomised process I see no difference with that on the cellular level and it looks like it is a fair principle. What I find problematic is if people expect the bad guys to die more than the good guys as it reveals a certain level of naivity in their thinking. Its a bit like cancer to be a more cruel death to a child as compared to a grown up. Was there any reason you asked about eye cancer in children? Would you think it to be more cruel than pancreatic cancer or a brain tumour?
No, not really. But cancer in children seems so hideous to me, that I can’t imagine that if there was an metaphysical entity that really cared for us, that even he would do everything possible to cure it/ treat it. It seems like the only ones doing the research, the treatment, the caring are people. Human being with the knowledge, skills and caring that years of science has enabled.
I somehow had the feeling that you thought that the random act of death applied to children was indication for you that a metaphysical entity does not care. Considering that said metaphysical entity would see physical death as no tragedy as it returns you to your metaphysical state it would be logically incoherent to expect it to intervene.
Now do you believe the concern people have about the death of other humans is a physical or a metaphysical one? If you are a materialist please explain by what physical reason infanticide and abortion become objectable to you, and if they are not, why you are concerned about a metaphysical entity not preventing the death of children from cancer and by what scientific criteria you would justify spending $500.000 on a womb transplant (considering $ 330.000 for a kidney transplant) to potentially create a life compared to spending that same amount of money to save a huge number of existing lives. Is it the long term exposure to science?
purely the evolved feeling of empathy that every human being has. Nothing more, nothing less.
Not a materialist, but a human being with a morality and ethics developed through science and reason.
The problem of evil is a deep problem, one that has been discussed at length down through the ages, and certainly not fully resolved. Anyway, on this site, one time the discussion was on whether science had found anything useless. I suggested that tumors are useless. And someone here told me that God uses tumors to teach people lessons!
so if you are not a materialist (or physicalist) you must believe in a nonmaterial part of reality which would be interesting to explore. Materialists by the way are human beings as well, so a “but” is not appropriate unless you want to imply they are not. However it does not answer the question about the coherence of your moral values with regards to abortion, infanticide compared to a child death from cancer. Whilst the latter might be explained by random mutations the other two look to me not explainable by randomised processes. Does that mean that death of a human is morally acceptable or more fair if not governed by a randomised process?
Also I would be interested to find out how to derive morals and ethics from science as we normaly apply them to scicence
Patrick, Marvin, and GJDS,
I’ll say a bit more what I mean about scripture sometimes correcting our view of the natural world (that we study scientifically). Broadly speaking, science addresses at least these five categories of questions:
- The basis for science: Is it possible to discover new truths about nature? If so, how and why?
- The process of science: What is an effective scientific method for learning about nature?
- The discoveries of science: What does the scientific method tell us about nature?
- The inferences of science: Do those scientific discoveries have meta-scientific (philosophical, religious) implications?
- The human aspect of science: What are our motives, ethics, and goals for doing science?
The second and third categories of questions are typically answered within the sciences themselves, with little input from other disciplines. That’s proper. If we restrict ourselves to those sorts of questions, then it should be rare that theology – or any other discipline – steps in to provide useful guidance to scientists. (Rare, but not in principle impossible. In my blog, I offered one potential historical example: Radical Behaviorism.)
But the first, fourth, and fifth categories of questions inevitably overlap with other areas of human knowledge, with ideas flowing back and forth. One’s philosophical / religious worldview inevitably affects how one addresses those questions. So for example, regarding the foundations of science, I would argue historically that scripture helped to correct some common pre-scientific pagan beliefs about the natural world, and helped lay a foundation of philosophical beliefs about the natural world which helped the scientific revolution get going. Regarding the fourth category: it’s not unusual for a scientific result which has the consensus of scientists of many different philosophical/religious worldviews to allow for multiple meta-scientific extrapolations. (For example: in a few billion years, assuming the laws of nature and our solar system keep operating the way they have been for the last few billion years, our sun will evolve to a state where life on Earth will be impossible.) There are often several different possible atheistic interpretations, and several different possible Christian interpretations, and I would imagine several different possible Buddhist interpretations, and so forth, all of them at least in principle consistent with the science. For me, scripture provides guidance on what sorts of philosophical and religious interpretations of the science I find most plausible.
I guess you can say I am a naturalist? As I look for natural explanation for what exists. While I can’t exclude the existence of anything supernatural, I don’t see any necessity for anything supernatural to explain anything about the universe, as natural explanation in the sciences provide an outstanding explanation without invoking a supernatural anything.
Regarding my moral values, those are an ever changing outgrow of instinct, empathy, culture, laws, and most of all my own reasoning. Moral issues are very complex and never clear cut as most people make them out to be. They are always dependent on present situation and reasoning is needed to make the correct decisions which can always be changed if new reasoning results in a different path.
Your five categories and discussion on these are reasonable and thus I am not debating or disagreeing with your comments – the subject requires detailed discussion and my comments can only scratch the surface.
My outlook (and hopefully positive contribution), endeavours to address how we may discuss initially the Natural Sciences (and then we may continue to the Social Sciences), which goes to the matter of interpreting scripture in relation to science (and vice-versa). This commences with what we believe is a human being, and how human reason is exercised within a world consisting of objects that can be studied using methods, theories and instruments (the sciences). This makes our understanding of a human being, or personhood, a major discussion point. Philosophically we would need to ask questions such as the accessibility of this world of objects to human reason/intellect, and this question is beyond the purview of the Natural Sciences. Questions of personhood however, delineate theists against atheists/anti-theists, spiritualists against materialists, and so on. The Natural Sciences are done in an identical manner by people, irrespective of how they may be categorised; their beliefs however, could profoundly differ, without impacting on the scientific activities.
If the scientific outcomes clash with received wisdom, cultural norms, or tribal stories, the person doing the scientific work would need to consider such things and how they ‘stack up’ with the results from science – thus we enter a subjective area. Since I have stated the original position is to regard the world of scientific investigation as one of objects (material), I think it is reasonable to conclude that any beliefs that need to be (re)examined are related to these material objects. Consequently (and this is a generalisation that can easily be debated), such conflicts would be minor within a theological framework, and the only serious consideration is that of what is correct and what is in error regarding the object (eg the world is flat, the world is round).
Social Sciences however, would impact on our views and beliefs of personhood (what is a human being) as would theological discussions. Extrapolating from the study of material objects to issues of what is personhood, what is meaning, how we arrive at moral and ethical matters, is a source of error and should be recognised as such. Using the results of Natural Sciences to bolster or destroy beliefs should be repudiated by all scientists as propaganda and ideology.
Theological discussions should instead show how our beliefs and philosophical outlooks, and intellectual pursuits, are founded on what we believe regarding ourselves and other human beings, and to a Christian, this is faith based. Ultimately we all (theists and atheists) arrive at the ‘ageless’ questions of how we understand what is good and evil, and what choices we make.
17 posts were merged into an existing topic: Do we need faith in order to have morality/meaning/purpose in our lives and societies?
I’m not sure that science/reason can have positive effects on, as much as being significantly affected by…
With science serving the purpose of structured investigation of the laws of nature it on congruent with theology as to the postulation of the universe being given laws to follow.
If you look at evolution in the context of the word of God or the law of existence as you might call it as well you find it perfectly coherent from the point that it appears to follow the function to “love thy neighbour like thyself” thus being integrative and leading to increased complexity. The initiation of the process by random mutation still does not imply lack of purpose as logic would dictate that the randomness of the process would have the purpose of optimising adaptive response to a problem. It does not even subtract from the postulated onmiscience of the cause of a randomised event with regards to the known outcome of an optimised structure, e.g. there is method in the randomisation as we know very well from trial designs, so if I were to develop a self optimising structure I would try to build in a randomisation element.
Christianity is dying out, they say. England’s influential Spectator magazine has boldly put a precise date on the disappearance of Christianity from Britain: 2067. While this may be rather over dramatic,Christianity is indeed in rapid free-fall. The once dominant worldview and creationist scientific paradigm has now been undermined and banished to the fringe of all western cultures.
None-the This should not come as a surprise! Mainstream Christianity has been in self-destruct mode for decades. Accompanying the godless hearse of mainstream science to its own funeral. This should have never happened! Not only did Christianity largely embrace Darwin’s godless Theory of Evolution from the outset, but also naively embraced the hard core atheism of naturalism and godless materialism. On which mainstream science now operates: Which decrees that ALL REALITY must be fully explained by natural processes and godless causes alone, without regard to God or the supernatural. A godless “theory of everything” that has no place for God, None-the-less,Christian leaders and intellectuals vainly attempt to integrate theism and Christianity with this godless metaphysics of mainstream science. Such efforts are doomed from the outset: Because it is impossible to integrate theism with the hard core atheism of naturalism.
As a consequence, the creationist foundations on which the entire Christian worldview was founded was progressively dismantled and discredited by the godless naturalism of mainstream science, And subsequently progressively abandoned by the church. Bringing into question the Old Testament manuscripts and the integrity of the New Testament manuscripts. And thus the substitutionary atoning death of Christ. All of which was founded on the integrity of the Genesis account. . The die was thus cast for the demise and decline of theism, and the demolition of Christianity itself. As science alone was now the sole definer of truth and reality.
Tragically Christian leaders, then and now, failed to discern that the “philosophical” naturalism and godless materialism on which mainstream science operated was nothing more than “Scientism” masquerading as science. Moreover, in the vain attempt to placate the godless naturalism of the scientific establishment, Christian leaders and intellectuals aided and abetted the opponents of theism to dismantle and abolish theism and the Christian worldview. Waging war on those Christian scientists and Biblical creationists holding line against this tidal wave of “metaphysical” naturalism and “scientism’ imposed by the scientific establishment.
As pointed out by noted atheist Daniel Dennett, Darwinian is the acid that eroded the foundations of the Judaeo-Christian worldview. Indeed, it was for this reason that Darwin’s ‘bulldog”, Thomas Henry Huxley, lobbied furiously to have Darwin entombed in Westminster Cathedral. Darwin’s theory has indeed eroded the foundations of creation and the whole Biblical worldview. Even thought biological evolution has no answer for the origin of life, the DNA double helix, Consciousness, language music, conscience, or a multitude of other attribute of living creatures. The entire evolutionary hypothesis was entirely based on assumptions, inferences and subjective interpretations of remains. None of which could be verified by direct observation or the Empirical & Scientific Method. Which has no role in testing past historical events. Thus, there was no possible way that the scientific method could be used to determine that unobserved past historical events happened one way, and not another way, or even whether the supposed “evolutionary continuum” happened at all: Particularly when the most repeated observation and experiment in science affirms that there are reproductive and cross breeding boundaries and reproduction “limits” for every form of life, without exception. Making, Darwin’s supposed “evolutionary continuum” impossible.
Similarly, the godless “Theory of Everything” has itself turned out to be more imagined than real. Physics and cosmology have failed to produce a scientific basis for the godless theory of everything. And is based on nothing more than an unproven theoretical construct, involving unverifiable hypothetical theories, mind experiments, fancy maths, invisible matter, contradictory claims, unresolved models, unresolved paradoxes, and ever more mysteries. All directed towards maintaining the unproven “blind faith” assumptions of metaphysical naturalism.
All of which are in violation of the most established observation and law in science and physics: Namely, the established reality that the universe of necessity “started out” in an initial state of “minimum” entropy. An initial state of optimum order, information and useable energy. Just as the Genesis Biblical account proclaims. Indeed, the Second Law of thermodynamics affirms that the universe is running down towards increasing disorder, loss of biological information, and loss of usable energy: Towards a final state of maximum disorder and eventual heat death. A reality no scientist disputes. Meaning the whole godless construct of cosmological and biological evolution, of ever-increasing order and biological information is in conflict with the Second law of Thermodynamics and increasing entropy and disorder. Meaning, Cosmological and biological evolution It is entirely a “metaphysical” religious construct, founded on “philosophical” naturism and godless materialism, nothing more. Christianity had thus abandoned God’s revealed truth for a godless worldview founded on a delusion. For which the Christian world has paid a horrendous price, and brought into its very existence into question. The blind leading the blind.
.
1 Like
…put a precise date on the disappearance of Christianity from Britain: 2067. While this may be rather over dramatic,Christianity is indeed in rapid free-fall.
To use a bit of wisdom from an old wise Pharisee: If it is from men, it will fail (and indeed there is nothing we could do to keep it alive). If it is from God, there is nothing we can do to stop it.
If the powerful institutions we have now come to identify with “Christianity” are indeed in freefall, then that means it would be returning to the humble roots from which it came and in which the Spirit shows itself so powerfully. Indeed, one might fairly conclude that by itself becoming a dominant power in the land, “Christianity” has meandered off of its own native soil. So bring it on. If God is in charge, then 2067 will come and go like every other hyped date or all the other atheist funerals for religion that pepper recent centuries. Whoever or whatever tiny group is still sensitive to the things of God in that time will have a good laugh and carry on as God allows.
It’s a good thing to recognize that none of us is God.
I don’t like how you conflate Christianity with creation science.
There is a problem beaglelady with terms and understanding them… For example, all Christians are creationists are they not? Do not all christians believe that God is the creator? That he created the universe “in the beginning” whenever that was? so it is not a specific brand of creation science that is really being challenged, but it is God’s very being and ability to create (and to redeem) that is being challenged. While there are many christians who hold to the opinion that God’s role in creation is not really discernible in a physical sense, yet they confess that God creates, and created.
That is certainly part of the problem isn’t it. When Galileo and other scientists said that the earth was not the center of the solar system or the universe, they were not challenging God. But Darwin certainly challenged God, and many evolutionists use the theory of evolution itself to challenge God’s relevance. If everything just happened by itself, then God is not necessary, they say, or they imply. And while they are happy when Christians swallow wholesale the theory of unguided, undirected, and undesigned evolution, yet they (such as Dawkins who is voluble, and others who are less so) are confused and unhappy and unsatisfied that foolish Christians would continue to believe in a god who is so obviously unnecessary. That is what banishing to the fringe means.
This topic was automatically closed 4 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.