The Conflict Within - The Left's Version of Creationism
Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 9 months ago to Philosophy
I've mentioned in other comments, a recent book I've been reading and studying by a favorite Astro-physicist, Hilton Ratcliffe, titled "Stephen Hawking Smoked My Socks." The primary emphasis of this book, that follows much of Ratcliffe's previous work has to do with the effect of belief systems on scientific inquiry and mathematical formulation of and nonsensical corrections/additions to theories to incorporate such beliefs into current scientific research and even experimental findings. In these writings, Ratcliffe is really talking about socially derived belief's-faith's impact on science today, as well as the fact that all humans grow up with sets of belief systems that those in science, in particular though not exclusively, must first recognize such belief systems' impacts and their influences on their and their predecessors' work, but then take the extremely difficult path of ensuring that such does not interfere with their actual and factual experimental and measured findings and work.
Now, I've recently encountered another source in the referenced blog (Gene Expression), that goes even further than Ratcliffe in describing this phenomena of human existence in scientific work by delving into the scientific squabble that's been going on since the 70's with those, sometimes termed neo-darwinists', that searched for and believe they've found support in their studies and work to support what they've termed sociobiology. A term developed to explain many studied characteristics of today's individual humans actions and responses whose predilections in society are derived from evolutionary genetic traits at neural and molecular levels combined with environmentally influenced expressions. The referenced article, though not easily read, describes those opposing sociobiology as driven by their own early Marxist and Stalinist indoctrination that wish to believe that humans are so malleable as to be controlled through progressive/socialist government and institutional policies and imposed moralities.
The article goes on to compare the opposing leftist, progressive influence to the rightist, conservative arguments on creationism:
"Rose, like his fellow travellers Gould and Lewontin, doesn't want his worldview, which has been extensively shaped by Marxist philosophy, to come crumbling down. The solutions proffered are state centered, gene-phobic, and premised on the extreme malleability of human nature. Further, like Diamond, he knows what sells and what his fans want to read and hear. He panders to the ideology, whether he truly believes in the Ghost in the Machine or not, and despite the warnings offered by Ehrenreich, McIntosh and Konner, the faithful of the Left lap up the ideologically reassuring pablum and turn a blind eye to the reality unfolding before them. The core of this faith is that human nature is malleable beyond limits that now exist, and like I've written before, along with my co-bloggers, it is that faith in the face of reason that binds one faction of the Left to their faith-based counterparts on the Right and like on the Right, the Left has its charlatans and hypocrites delivering these sermons." (emphasis added)
For Objectivist, these ideas and concepts will make a lot of sense. For those dedicated to the validity of their beliefs-faith, as the author says, in the face of reason, they will find much to argue with (if they even bother to read and follow some of the referenced material before commenting).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've been disappointed lately in the level of much posting and commentary on the site of recent days, and much of my posting lately is an attempt to restore to the site, a quality of Objective thought, posting, and commentary; as well as further the value of reason over faith/belief.
Now, I've recently encountered another source in the referenced blog (Gene Expression), that goes even further than Ratcliffe in describing this phenomena of human existence in scientific work by delving into the scientific squabble that's been going on since the 70's with those, sometimes termed neo-darwinists', that searched for and believe they've found support in their studies and work to support what they've termed sociobiology. A term developed to explain many studied characteristics of today's individual humans actions and responses whose predilections in society are derived from evolutionary genetic traits at neural and molecular levels combined with environmentally influenced expressions. The referenced article, though not easily read, describes those opposing sociobiology as driven by their own early Marxist and Stalinist indoctrination that wish to believe that humans are so malleable as to be controlled through progressive/socialist government and institutional policies and imposed moralities.
The article goes on to compare the opposing leftist, progressive influence to the rightist, conservative arguments on creationism:
"Rose, like his fellow travellers Gould and Lewontin, doesn't want his worldview, which has been extensively shaped by Marxist philosophy, to come crumbling down. The solutions proffered are state centered, gene-phobic, and premised on the extreme malleability of human nature. Further, like Diamond, he knows what sells and what his fans want to read and hear. He panders to the ideology, whether he truly believes in the Ghost in the Machine or not, and despite the warnings offered by Ehrenreich, McIntosh and Konner, the faithful of the Left lap up the ideologically reassuring pablum and turn a blind eye to the reality unfolding before them. The core of this faith is that human nature is malleable beyond limits that now exist, and like I've written before, along with my co-bloggers, it is that faith in the face of reason that binds one faction of the Left to their faith-based counterparts on the Right and like on the Right, the Left has its charlatans and hypocrites delivering these sermons." (emphasis added)
For Objectivist, these ideas and concepts will make a lot of sense. For those dedicated to the validity of their beliefs-faith, as the author says, in the face of reason, they will find much to argue with (if they even bother to read and follow some of the referenced material before commenting).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've been disappointed lately in the level of much posting and commentary on the site of recent days, and much of my posting lately is an attempt to restore to the site, a quality of Objective thought, posting, and commentary; as well as further the value of reason over faith/belief.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
With regard to the philosophical training, I am not leading him through AR's philosophy step-by-step, if that is what you are asking. When I first posted Galt's oath on the outside door of my lab, the next day he saw it, said the oath, and then said he agreed with it to me. At that time, I recommended that he read Atlas Shrugged. I have discussed his entrepeneurial goals and given him my advice regarding intellectual property.
No, I have not gone into metaphysics and epistemology with him. That is not my area of expertise. If and when he asks, I will do so. I have discussed enough with him to know that philosophically he would fit in around here, but I have not gone into the kind of philosophical detail that perhaps I should have. He certainly knows where I stand, and he generally agrees.
You've mentioned this "John Galt in training" several times before. Is the moniker a function of his philosophy? Brilliance, alone, wouldn't be the defining quality of that character.
I for one, am not going to give your nonsense that which you desire the most, the respect you believe will give some added credence to your belief. You only get respect by earning it, and you certainly haven't earned mine.
You use the same techniques that your vaunted mentor uses--challenge anyone to a debate, on his terms only using his material only, and then never accept or show up, refusing to publish any of his 'work' for peer review, etc, etc.
But more, in response to the last part of your comment, your juvenile, abusive attempts to hi-jack another member's posting to proselytize this type of nonsense only goes to prove exactly what the authors of the referenced material are trying to point out through your demonstration. But to the point of this reply, the site gives the poster the right to 'Hide' you from his posting for inappropriate commenting and hi-jacking. I only regret that in hiding you, I also hide some excellent replies to your nonsense comments.
Although you do not directly answer my question, it appears to me the answer is yes, you did grow up in a religious household.
I think you have sunk into an intellectual squalor I have previously not seen at the Gulch. You attack me on several grounds. You state I am trying to be an administrator of the blog. You say such things as you believe in the universal flood. All I can say is, live your life as you would live it.
By the way, I have several of the books of Lee Strobel in my library and have read them. Unfortunately, I find him to a typical Christian apologist—not a critical thinker. Frankly, I classify him (at best) as in error and (at worst) a nut case.
I am sure you claim religion is a matter of faith, which of course it is. I don’t have any faith. I don’t respect faith. I don’t believe in faith. I would be very foolish if, after a person has announced he holds his belief by faith, if were to then try to argue with such a person because the only means I have are reason, empirical demonstration, rules of evidence, and so forth.
None of these are relevant to the grounds of faith-based belief. So I don’t argue. But, people of faith are very defensive because they want intellectual respect for positions that were not arrived at intellectually. They want the respect to which they know they are not entitled. They want me to treat their faith or their mystical belief with the same respect I treat another person’s rational or scientific conviction. When they do not get respect, they get antagonistic or offended.
I think it is clear that in a case such as this discussion, your defensiveness is an issue of an intellectual bad conscience more than anything else. More technically, you deal with cognitive dissonance as Festinger would expect you to.
With that, I end this discussion. I have some utterly inconsequential matters which require my inattention.
I'm a Gulch administrator.
While I can appreciate your passion, I'm afraid Zenphamy is right in that you are indeed proselytizing - which is clearly defined in the CoC as something we'd rather not have in the Gulch ( http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/faq#f... ).
It's time to step back, take a breath, dial it down a bit, and head towards common ground. Creationists are welcome in the Gulch. The advocating of creationism, not so much.
Thanks,
Scott
Bonafide Gulch Administrator ;)
I do not feel anger. I do feel disappointment. Disappointment that people who pride themselves in looking at objective reality, simply cannot imagine that something has happened in a past that is far less distant than they supposed, that they cannot explain. And when someone presents them with evidence of that fact, they accuse that person of, for lack of a better way to describe it, lying.
The first tale I ever heard about the event the Greeks called "cataclysm" ("Mother of All Storms") and various translations of a certain Writing call "The Flood," centered only on the story of the one man who, 120 years in advance of the event, received advance warning and built a ship to prepare for it. And in those early accounts, that ship wasn't much to look at: basically an oversized claw-footed bathtub with the claw feet removed and a pilothouse incongruously perched on top. If that's your memory of the Flood story, I don't blame you for staying skeptical about it now.
But I do blame you for refusing to examine the evidence, and dismissing it out-of-hand just because it does not conform to something else you have memorized.
In fact I do not claim that the Flood was a miraculous event. It was an accident waiting to happen. The miracles were (a) the 120 years' advance warning a certain shipwright had of the event, (b) said shipwright receiving some form of inspiration for a ship that could withstand the event, and (c) certain winds, kicked up no doubt when the first mountains rose up from the compression of the continental plates and displaced the air above them, happening to catch the ship just right to push it into an eddy cut off from the main flow (for that is how the phrase rendered "highlands of Ararat" really should translate), so that it would stay out of the most violent seas that would otherwise have crushed it.
Beyond that: I recommend a man named Lee Strobel. Who, unlike myself, did not grow up in a religious household. He set out to disprove the existence of any Chief Architect of the world, only to find the evidence the world had such an Architect nothing short of overwhelming. He even wrote a book about it: "The Case for Faith." Look it up.
And last, and possibly most important: I refuse to answer to any person other than an administrator as to the appropriateness of my words or my choice of venue. If you think you can take the by-laws of this forum into your own hands, and expect me to respect that taking-of-the-by-laws-into-your-own-hands, please disabuse yourself of that notion.
And that goes for anyone here other than an accredited and properly empowered, and identified, administrator.
I think at the time I bought the idea that sociobiology was naïve to think we could study these questions without cultural bias, but now this position seems like giving up. Clearly it's hard to find the truth in a world full of “those on the right/left” and all the other biases we have, but truth still exists.
The article talks about how “those on the left” like Jered Diamond's focus on the effects of geography on human civilization in Guns, Germs, and Steel and presumably would not like his support for studying genetic variation in ethnic groups. Who cares what they'd like?
“You want answers!?”
“I want the truth!”
beside my desk at Blythefille AFB in '71 -- WFO. . at the top end of
the volume scale!!! -- j
.
I came to the conclusion people are religious for psychological rather than philosophical reasons. The reason deals in great part with Festinger’s findings. He found most beliefs are not amenable to change. The most difficult beliefs for people to examine are those beliefs which have been (1) held for a long time, (2) adopted before age of reason, and (3) most often repeated.
The overwhelming majority of the people who are religious, were raised to be religious. Their first indoctrinations into the teachings of religion came from their parents, family, relatives, later on from churches and school. Their exposure to religion far preceded any appreciation of the philosophical arguments that have been adduced to support religious belief. The emotional commitment is years earlier in the person’s development than the arguments he may subsequently memorize to support his belief.
The question is: Where you brought up in a religous household?
You're wrong about the answers that "science" has. You know nothing of the ruthless suppression of all debate, nor of the secret doubts so many scientists hold, and dare not express in fear of their jobs.
Hans Christian Andersen once spun a morality tale of swindlers who accepted a royal commission and produced nothing in return. They said the wares they sold were invisible to any who were stupid or unfit for their posts. The promulgators of the theory of evolution, are analogous to Andersen's swindlers. And the technique is the same.
I challenge you to disprove the account of a violent event. As Brown himself does. Let the vaunted scientific community meet him in honest debate. At least one person even suggested such a debate, then reneged on his own offer.
And I repeat: evolution is a fraud. No person who professes a respect for objective reality can hold with it for very long.
You do not see--none of you see--the dissent from the orthodox view of that theory.
You never heard--I wonder how many in the Gulch have heard--that Charles Darwin himself expressed this salient doubt: why, if his theory was at all correct, did every single fossil found, represent a fully formed species, and not a transitional form as he predicted? Where were--and for that matter, where are--the multitude of transitional forms? Where are the links in what ought to be analogous to a chain-mail shirt? Have you ever heard of the expression "Missing Link"?
This could have been what Ayn Rand herself meant by "After all, the theory of evolution is only an hypothesis."
You shudder at the thought of the alternative hypothesis--that this world did have a Chief Architect after all, though Rand denied Him all her life. But what you follow instead is a null hypothesis (that has a special meaning in statistics), the odds against which are so long that any intellectually honest statistician would have rejected it long before this.
I challenge you, one and all, to debate the alternative hypothesis, and approach it with the same discipline Rand demanded for the examination of any other part of reality.
And don't begin with what you call "the primary literature." I submit to you that is a piece of dogma equally as offensive to objective reality as is the Qu'ran.
You can't have "preconceived perceptions" since perception comes from your senses. None of your senses have any demonstrated or proven precognition ability. Beliefs are the only thing that can enable one to form "preconceived perceptions", and that's anathema to Objectivism and denies the value of life as it is in reality.
Load more comments...