Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Man vs. Nature

The assumption behind AGW is that nature apart from man is in a perfect equilibrium, but that man disturbs that balance. So, even though scientists admit there is no "ideal" or "perfect" temperature or climate, they nonetheless pitch in and agree that any tampering with the natural cycle of things by man is bad.

This assumes or implies two things: first, that nature is designed, so that there is a natural balance that "ought" to be, and second, that man is not an integral part of the natural cycle of things, but, rather, an interloping damage-doer.

This belief is philosophy, not science (and scientists should at least have the decency to point this out). This position actually supports the Christian view that man stands above the rest of creation, but is damaged and flawed in his actions.

But wait a minute. If man is nothing more than an uncreated "thing" that evolution spat out, then blame evolution, or blame nature, not man. But the assumption behind all of this is that man is somehow a free-willed moral being who can control his actions for good or ill.

Sound familiar? Once again we find non-believers, darwinists, and atheists unwittingly supporting the Christian worldview.

I am utterly convinced that the Christian worldview has the broadest explanatory power, greatest internal cohesion (consistency), and best correspondence to reality of all belief systems "out there". As I have explained in other posts, atheism is ultimately illogical and unworkable in practice -- because while many love the freedom from moral accountability it affords, few are willing to live with the logical consequences of materialism -- that we are unintended, undesigned, and without intrinsic worth or destiny.

Even its critics and deniers support the Christian worldview.

And that's the way the Ball bounces.


Allan said...

Richard, isn't it about time that you broadened your intellectual horizons?

If your so convinced of the Christian belief system, then you should have no trouble dealing with the arguments posed in "God Is Not Great".

When I saw that you had bought into Tod Maffin's self-described success, I realized that you were not a person who looks very long or very deep at much of anything.
And now to see that you are spouting Christianity, as if you had actually given it some thought, and been persuaded, then i guess I should be neither surprised or disappointed at your naivete.

I'll let Hitchens deal with your "Thank God" silliness - his is probably the most important book to be printed in the last 50 years.
(and before you make assumptions about me - I'm very familiar with Jesus, the church, et al, so your "faith" is not unfamiliar to me)

To get sucked into the Maffin hype is to be revealed as an easily fooled member of his audience.

You need to re-claim your built-in ability to think for yourself, and question what's put in front of you.

Take for example this doozy from the speaker you suspect is in such high demand ... here.
and ask yourself what qualifies Maffin to make such pronouncements?

Is he a teacher?
Is he a parent?
Is he a child psychologist?

Answer: none of the above.

Allan said...

If the link above doesn't work, try HERE

RkBall said...

The Maffin comment was self-satirizing sarcasm -- as anyone who read the (probably self-written) bio. link would have (or should have) realized.

For a critique of God Is Not Great, I would direct you to Allister McGrath.

We all choose our heroes. Yours are Howard Stern and Hitchens. Mine is Jesus Christ. 'Nuff said.

Allan said...

You have only one hero?
And Jesus is that hero?
To some, He's God, God's Son, Saviour, Lord of Kings.
To you, he's apparently a mere "hero".
So how would you term Ric Hansen? Romeo Dalliard? Just names in the news?
No heroism there?

I see you side-step avoiding reading Hitchens' book for yourself.
Are you up on Tim Lahaye? Charles Colson?
What social commentary does a Christian believer read these days?
Any? Or is the Bible all you need? Maybe the National Post thrown in.
Who knows. Who cares.

Couching everything in light of "God's written revalation" is like asking people to play along in a brain-washing exercise.
But, whatever manner you choose to amuse yourself in your world, so be it. Many people prefer to live in a pretend world. Warcraft is popular.

Yet, regardless of your spiritual evolution and awe of all things Christian by your assessment, you could not have missed Tod Maffin trying to shift blame to others, when only days before he was taking full credit.
How does that compare to your understanding of "hero" and Christian ethics?

Not to strain your head. I'm moving on.

RkBall said...

Well, thanks for stopping by.

The Tod Maffin comment was pure satire. You still don't get it. To put it more plainly for you, it was in no way, shape or form a commendation of Tod Maffin.

Satire: the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.

You might want to try to get some insight into why faith in Jesus Christ bothers you so much. He told human beings to "aim high", in terms of living exemplary moral, honest lives. Does that bother you? Do you have dark secrets in your life that would cause shame if brought to light?

Perhaps as an atheist you should give some thought to immaterial concepts such as shame, guilt, honor, love. These are sheer absurdities in an uncreated, purely material universe. Do they actually exist, or are they nothing more than chemical drips in your undesigned brain, weird twists of evolution which is itself without purpose or design? Without God and creation, even absract thought is an absurdity. The fact you can communicate with me and I with you an astonishment.

Atheists owe a lot to God.

Brian in Calgary said...

To allan - If you are so convinced that the Christian belief system is flawed, then you should have no trouble dealing with the arguments posed in "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist," a book co-authored by Norman L Geisler and Frank Turek.

You should also have no trouble defending the following statement by noted Darwinist Richard Lewontin of Harvard University who said, in part, in his January 9, 1997 article "Billions and Billions of Demons," which is a review of Carl Sagan’s book, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

RkBall said...

That's a great quote.

"... nothing intellectually compelling or challenging.. bald assertions coupled to superstition... woefully pathetic"