M
Monkey487
Guest
[FONT="]Do Not Miss The Forest For The Trees. A Response to the Article [/FONT][FONT="]“Critics of gay marriage often base their arguments on the certainty of their religious convictions. But societies without doubt are dangerous places, argues Adam Gopnik.” [/FONT][FONT="]by Mark Jennings. (Part 1 of 5)[/FONT]
[FONT="]Volumes have been written about the history, origin, and nature of reason. How do we know anything? How do we choose what to believe and then justify that belief? There is much at stake. We, the ‘little guys,’ are on the hook here which is why I decided to take on this little article because it seems an increasing number of people believe that this view of universal ‘doubt’ is not only true but is also benevolent in intention and practice. I aim to expose the article as fundamentally dishonest in intent by exposing what the ultimate goal (and legal foundation) of (for) the ‘progressive’ movement really is. [/FONT]
[FONT="] I (perhaps over) simplify from all that I’ve read about the process and create (as influenced by Kant) two divergent bases from which ‘reasoning’ occurs. One of these bases supposes that the human mind revolves (in and) around the universe as an observer. Science, which alleges to strip away all of the religious noise (likely generated as by products from competition, fear and scarcity—hat tip to Marx) is in this view objective as the mind is assumed to be merely a product of a mathematically ordered universe (which in turn is assumed be one of a boundless number of (contiguous?) universes which effervesce out of the twilight zone—as the question of ‘where’ clearly does not apply—until we get a ‘Goldilocks’ version in which we exist.) It is all just math we believe; there is therefore no reason to doubt ‘science’ provided we remember to carry the two and so on. Freedom, in the old libertarian sense, is not too well provided for (according to the ‘old rules’ which have dominated past intellectual history) in this worldview as individual free choice is (was thought to be?) ultimately illusory (Huxley’s whistle) since all of it (and man) is just math. Many have despaired in the past of these threatening implications; some have proposed the forging new myths for the scientific age to, in effect, tame the ancient illusions which have enslaved us. I suppose the hope (for the elites at least) is that by getting inside the ‘formula’ of the universe ‘we’ can then become the masters of it in order to somehow escape the deterministic implications cast by the old myths upon the reality that ‘All is Math.’ (The simple folk will settle for pleasure.) The stuffy old notions of contradiction (and the like) will be eventually categorized as being merely ‘complex’ as our universe is progressively conquered. Imagine the possibilities of becoming god… [/FONT]
[FONT="]The other base (which I believe in) is very threatening to those who place their faith in science as the objective savior of mankind. This (perhaps a bit modified) Kantian view supposes that the universe revolves around the human mind in which our perceptive (which is limited by our physicality) observations are ordered and placed within and according to categories within the human mind itself which neighbors the physical universe. (The ‘other’ nature (for lack of better language) of the connection between the mind and the body confounds us simply because such a connection cannot merely be physical and as such is unacceptable and is quite frankly inadmissible as a possibility to our scientific predilections—such silly notions are for the ancients we are told. The unacceptability and inadmissibility of the idea of dueling, contiguous, and co-residing natures is not itself scientifically discerned—the material view is assumed by science as a framework into which we plug our math and observations into in order to understand the ‘nature’ of things. Circular?) The origin of reason in the human mind is the Creator of the universe; the mind is not a product of the non-mindful (heaven forbid we entertain the idea of intelligent design—unless we want to smuggle in some farming space aliens for a bit of fun) yet mathematically describable processes but rather by a transcendent, supremely intelligent God who precedes the universe itself. This allows for the possibility that freewill can exist within the human mind as it is not necessarily trapped inside the universe and as such is not subject to some hidden physical laws from which it cannot escape. The danger of this, of course, lies in that we can then shape what we want to see to fit our desires. (Desires are products of free choice as reason, imbedded moral maxims, and innumerable social and cultural norms respond to our various perceptions and appetites.) Man can still do math because his mind comes from God who created the universe according to mathematically discernable laws as we have repeatedly discovered. But we can make models into which we can plug our observations and thus uphold our preexisting ideas about our own nature and origins. I believe God did it this way because He wanted us to have freedom to blot out (or alter) what we don’t really want to see. God intentionally veiled Himself to protect our freedom. This dangerous idea brings uncertainty into clear view as a very unacceptable possibility to some. We generally do not like uncertainty. In my view, we are actively building the myth that science is steadfastly objective for philosophical reasons—we want God out of our universe. We are told that we ought to pay no mind to the obvious that science itself rests on a very large number of philosophical assumptions. Here is one admission in regard to the birth of a law that astronomers use today to understand the universe…[/FONT]
[FONT="]Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe… But the unwelcome supposition of a favored location must be avoided at all costs… [it] is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory because the theory postulates homogeneity…Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position, the departures from uniformity, which are introduced by the recession factors, must be compensated by the second term representing the effects of spatial curvature. [/FONT]
[FONT="]Hubble, E. P. 1937. The observational approach to cosmology. Oxford, United Kingdom: Clarendon Press. Pp. 50-59.[/FONT][FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]Does this really appear to be objective to you? (And I may be getting ahead of myself but) don’t you find it to be just a tad bit ironic that the author of the article to which I am responded is calling us all to be universal doubters in the coming age of scientific certainty—an age in which men like Hubble can set the conditions to which practically all observations in that field are understood by that model while at the same time (through bully tactics) disallowing any questioning of the origin and the philosophical assumptions of the ‘Law’ so established? [/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]Theists believe that God, the Creator of all, the Maker of Law, infuses law and order into creation both physically (which men using God-given reason can study with sophisticated machinery and mathematics) and morally into those imbibed with the attributes communicable from Creator to creature. The theistic Natural Law tradition, which asserts, among other things, that it is God rather than men who grants rights, is that to which our founding fathers appealed when they made the case for independence from King George. This limits the power of both men (as factions) and government; and because of this we became a prosperous and free nation. This stand on the origin and nature of reason and rights severely limits the collection of power into a few hands. The idea of natural law is under constant assault simply because without the foundation of the ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’ government (as guided, bribed, and cajoled by competing interests) becomes the determiner of what rights people ought to have. [/FONT]
[FONT="]Volumes have been written about the history, origin, and nature of reason. How do we know anything? How do we choose what to believe and then justify that belief? There is much at stake. We, the ‘little guys,’ are on the hook here which is why I decided to take on this little article because it seems an increasing number of people believe that this view of universal ‘doubt’ is not only true but is also benevolent in intention and practice. I aim to expose the article as fundamentally dishonest in intent by exposing what the ultimate goal (and legal foundation) of (for) the ‘progressive’ movement really is. [/FONT]
[FONT="] I (perhaps over) simplify from all that I’ve read about the process and create (as influenced by Kant) two divergent bases from which ‘reasoning’ occurs. One of these bases supposes that the human mind revolves (in and) around the universe as an observer. Science, which alleges to strip away all of the religious noise (likely generated as by products from competition, fear and scarcity—hat tip to Marx) is in this view objective as the mind is assumed to be merely a product of a mathematically ordered universe (which in turn is assumed be one of a boundless number of (contiguous?) universes which effervesce out of the twilight zone—as the question of ‘where’ clearly does not apply—until we get a ‘Goldilocks’ version in which we exist.) It is all just math we believe; there is therefore no reason to doubt ‘science’ provided we remember to carry the two and so on. Freedom, in the old libertarian sense, is not too well provided for (according to the ‘old rules’ which have dominated past intellectual history) in this worldview as individual free choice is (was thought to be?) ultimately illusory (Huxley’s whistle) since all of it (and man) is just math. Many have despaired in the past of these threatening implications; some have proposed the forging new myths for the scientific age to, in effect, tame the ancient illusions which have enslaved us. I suppose the hope (for the elites at least) is that by getting inside the ‘formula’ of the universe ‘we’ can then become the masters of it in order to somehow escape the deterministic implications cast by the old myths upon the reality that ‘All is Math.’ (The simple folk will settle for pleasure.) The stuffy old notions of contradiction (and the like) will be eventually categorized as being merely ‘complex’ as our universe is progressively conquered. Imagine the possibilities of becoming god… [/FONT]
[FONT="]The other base (which I believe in) is very threatening to those who place their faith in science as the objective savior of mankind. This (perhaps a bit modified) Kantian view supposes that the universe revolves around the human mind in which our perceptive (which is limited by our physicality) observations are ordered and placed within and according to categories within the human mind itself which neighbors the physical universe. (The ‘other’ nature (for lack of better language) of the connection between the mind and the body confounds us simply because such a connection cannot merely be physical and as such is unacceptable and is quite frankly inadmissible as a possibility to our scientific predilections—such silly notions are for the ancients we are told. The unacceptability and inadmissibility of the idea of dueling, contiguous, and co-residing natures is not itself scientifically discerned—the material view is assumed by science as a framework into which we plug our math and observations into in order to understand the ‘nature’ of things. Circular?) The origin of reason in the human mind is the Creator of the universe; the mind is not a product of the non-mindful (heaven forbid we entertain the idea of intelligent design—unless we want to smuggle in some farming space aliens for a bit of fun) yet mathematically describable processes but rather by a transcendent, supremely intelligent God who precedes the universe itself. This allows for the possibility that freewill can exist within the human mind as it is not necessarily trapped inside the universe and as such is not subject to some hidden physical laws from which it cannot escape. The danger of this, of course, lies in that we can then shape what we want to see to fit our desires. (Desires are products of free choice as reason, imbedded moral maxims, and innumerable social and cultural norms respond to our various perceptions and appetites.) Man can still do math because his mind comes from God who created the universe according to mathematically discernable laws as we have repeatedly discovered. But we can make models into which we can plug our observations and thus uphold our preexisting ideas about our own nature and origins. I believe God did it this way because He wanted us to have freedom to blot out (or alter) what we don’t really want to see. God intentionally veiled Himself to protect our freedom. This dangerous idea brings uncertainty into clear view as a very unacceptable possibility to some. We generally do not like uncertainty. In my view, we are actively building the myth that science is steadfastly objective for philosophical reasons—we want God out of our universe. We are told that we ought to pay no mind to the obvious that science itself rests on a very large number of philosophical assumptions. Here is one admission in regard to the birth of a law that astronomers use today to understand the universe…[/FONT]
[FONT="]Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe… But the unwelcome supposition of a favored location must be avoided at all costs… [it] is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory because the theory postulates homogeneity…Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position, the departures from uniformity, which are introduced by the recession factors, must be compensated by the second term representing the effects of spatial curvature. [/FONT]
[FONT="]Hubble, E. P. 1937. The observational approach to cosmology. Oxford, United Kingdom: Clarendon Press. Pp. 50-59.[/FONT][FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]Does this really appear to be objective to you? (And I may be getting ahead of myself but) don’t you find it to be just a tad bit ironic that the author of the article to which I am responded is calling us all to be universal doubters in the coming age of scientific certainty—an age in which men like Hubble can set the conditions to which practically all observations in that field are understood by that model while at the same time (through bully tactics) disallowing any questioning of the origin and the philosophical assumptions of the ‘Law’ so established? [/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]Theists believe that God, the Creator of all, the Maker of Law, infuses law and order into creation both physically (which men using God-given reason can study with sophisticated machinery and mathematics) and morally into those imbibed with the attributes communicable from Creator to creature. The theistic Natural Law tradition, which asserts, among other things, that it is God rather than men who grants rights, is that to which our founding fathers appealed when they made the case for independence from King George. This limits the power of both men (as factions) and government; and because of this we became a prosperous and free nation. This stand on the origin and nature of reason and rights severely limits the collection of power into a few hands. The idea of natural law is under constant assault simply because without the foundation of the ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’ government (as guided, bribed, and cajoled by competing interests) becomes the determiner of what rights people ought to have. [/FONT]