"Liberals have a need to give meaning to their lives. They also have a need to persuade themselves that they are intellectually superior to people who believe in the Bible. Their irrationality about evolution is particularly striking. I refer you to my YouTube video titled, “The Truth About Evolution and Religion.” In the video I prove by quoting mainstream Darwinist biologists that: 1) Evolution only applies to the bodies of humans, not their souls. 2) Natural selection only explains adaptation, not common descent.
Liberals get emotionally upset at the idea that human beings did not evolve from animals."
what is wrong with giving meaning to life? You don’t give any meaning to life?
It seems by making your video, you are trying to persuade yourself that you are superior to someone.
Quotations are not “proof” of something. It is merely argument from authority.
And if you give weight to mainstream biology, then you too must agree with their conclusions. And thus their conclusions do not necessarily lead to being a liberal.
The moderator seems to think an analysis of liberalism is not an appropriate topic for libertarians. I stopped being a libertarian when I read an essay by Karl Rahner about theology and power. I am still supportive of Mises.org. It still plays an important roll because of its understanding of economics. But the organization will be stronger when its members realize that they are liberals in the negative sense that I mean.
No, I tend to think topics speaking of the existance or role of God, or how religion ought be treated in either hypothetical societies that don’t exist yet or in extant governments is simply not going to lead to any worthwhile dialogue on political theory, economics, or legal theory. You can play “follow the subsidy”, but that is about it.
EDIT: not that I am speaking as a moderator, I am not threatining to close the topic or anything. I am just giving my personal opinion as to why I think this topic is misplaced.
What is your reasoning and/or evidence that this is necessarily true for all liberals?
What do you mean by “believe in the Bible”?
Saying that they have a need to persuade themselves of that implies that, deep down, they know it isn’t true. Do you have any reasoning and/or evidence to support that implication?
First off, quoting a person doesn’t prove anything except that he believes, supports, or thinks certain things. It doesn’t prove that those things are themselves true or correct. Trying to argue otherwise is known as appealing to authority.
With that said, stating that evolution applies only to human bodies and not their souls means nothing to someone who doesn’t believe that such entities as souls exist. As far as common descent, on the other hand, you’re right that natural selection per se does not explain it. However, there seems to be overwhelming evidence from genetic analyses that all life on Earth is indeed related. YMMV there.
Human beings are animals. But perhaps liberals get emotionally upset at that idea because they don’t believe it’s true.
To say that you find it irrational for anyone to deny that God exists implies that God does exist. Perhaps you’d like to present your reasoning and/or evidence of God’s existence. (By “God”, I’m assuming you mean the God of the Bible – that is, you’re not talking about the God of the Qur’an, or Zeus, or Thor, or Wakan Tanka, etc.) Along with that, maybe you could explain how each and every one of us on Earth necessarily already knows that God exists.
Brian, here’s the relevant part of Mr. Roemer’s OP:
As you can see, Mr. Roemer is implicitly assuming that “revelation” is equivalent to empirical facts and/or logical reasoning. He’s arguing that people can be divided into two groups: those who put God first in their lives, and those who don’t. He considers this relevant because he assumes that the God and the Bible are true. This assumption, by the way, drives his assumption about “revelation”.
The meaning of ‘liberal’ , for most, changed when FDR started talking about there being a new type of liberalism when he passed the New Deal. That is in response to the defects of capitalism, in his estimation and many others’, that caused the great depression. This is why he couched his rhetoric in terms of ‘freedom’ (ie: the 4 freedoms he outlined): freedom from fear, freedom from want, freedom of worship, and freedom of speech. This is why it is different than a millenarian or revolutionary stance. It is really trying to strengthen old liberalism through state intervention, as a reaction to what is perceived to be an impediment to liberalism in so-called private avarice. Even Kennedy had the same philosophy: we have to have government that doesn’t make bloody revolution necessary.
New liberalism isn’t so much a remaking of the world, as a maintainence of the status quo through government intervention where necessary to make administration of things more to their liking.
It has nothing to do with animals or God or whatever else. That is nonsense; or trying to fit everything together simplistically.
Calling creationism and intelligent design “slickly marketed intellectual snake oil” is another example of their contempt for people of faith. What the authors know about evolution comes from popular books and articles about evolution written by laymen trying to promote a particular philosophy or religious point of view. An intellectually curious person learns about evolution by reading textbooks, peer-reviewed articles, and scholarly works.
The universe began 13 billion years ago (the Big Bang) and our solar system condensed into existence 5 billion years ago. Life began on Earth as bacteria and evolved into the present collection of species over a period of 3.5 billion years. There is no explanation for the Big Bang and the origin of life. There is also no explanation for evolution because the complexity of animals is so much greater than the complexity of bacteria. Natural selection only explains why species are adapted to their environment.
Many laymen think either that natural selection explains evolution or that it is a matter of controversy among scientists. Biologists with Ph.D.s know better. The following quote is from research professors who have improved the theory of natural selection with a mechanism they call facilitated variation. There is nothing in this quote or the book itself that says natural selection explains the complexity of multi-cellular life:
Facilitated variation is not like orthogenesis, a theory championed by the American paleontologist Henry Osborn (1857–1935), which imbues organisms with an internal preset course of evolutionary a progression or variation unfolding over time. Natural selection remains a major part of the explanation of how organisms have evolved characteristics so well adapted to the environment. (Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart, The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin’s Dilemma, p. 247)
You seem to be unaware that ‘facilitated variation’ has nothing to do with God/intelligent design. In fact, it’s set up as a rebuttal to intelligent design/irreducable complexity.
Bodyand soul are the metaphysical concepts of matter and form applied to human beings. Form (soul) is the principle or incomplete being that makes humans equal to one another and superior to animals. Matter (body) is the principle that makes humans different from one another. Whether they know it or not, biologists need the concepts of body and soul to put the study of human beings—embodied spirits—on a rational basis.
What makes humans equal to each other is their mental capability to respects each other’s rights. A soul is a fairy tale that you will not find in any scientific text.
Stop trying to inject your religion into the philosophy of liberty. Kneeling before an (invisible) God is slavery just as well.
Good catch, I. Ryan. I’d like to address this part of his essay as well.
Even if we accept arguendo that there must exist at least one infinite being, in no way does it follow that this infinite being must be the God of the Bible. To claim otherwise is to take a massive leap of faith. (Please excuse the pun.)
The meaning of ‘liberal’ , for most, changed when FDR started talking about there being a new type of liberalism when he passed the New Deal.
I don’t disagree, you’re right in a practicle sense (which is what matters). Though I think the word still has its original roots going in Europe, at least somewhat, doesn’t it? Likewise, I think in Europe the word “libertarian” I thought referes more to it’s original socialist anarchist context. Either way, I really like the word; way better than libertarian, anarchist, conservative, or whatever. It may be a bit quixotic to use, but I’m trying it out for now.
Karl Rahner gave a more general definition of power than is given by libertarians. Libertarians define power in terms of utility theory. Rahner defined power as the ability to affect somebodies consciousness without their consent. Before the fall of man, Adam and Eve interacted freely. The way I think of it is that if Eve tried to nag Adam, Adam could tune her out. After the fall, Adam and Eve were subject to death, concupiscence, and unwanted interference from each other.
It is completely arbitrary to define power in terms of force. Suppose you are stranded alone on an island, struggling to survive, and another weaker persons lands there. Should you cooperate or should you make that person your slave? Liberal answer: cooperation. Conservative answer: follow your conscience. The liberal answer makes no sense at all because we all know what utility theory says. There is no point in saying it twice. What to do in a concrete case depends on the circumstances. The conservative answer is the more rational one.
What is negative about liberalism is that liberals think religious faith is irrational.
“Liberal” has meant approximately the same thing for almost 300 years. Also, it still does mean what it did in every country except the United States (and perhaps Canada). It gets really tiresome when people accuse others of being liberals for acting in a way consistent only with anti-liberalism.
There is no comparison between the human soul and a UFO. A UFO is a scientific concept. The human soul is a concept in metaphysics. My guess is that Dr. Tyson is a liberal and doesn’t know or doesn’t want to know anything about metaphysics.
Since humans have free will and conscious knowledge, they are embodied spirits. Humans are superior to animals, but equal to one another. The soul or form is the metaphysical principle or incomplete being that makes humans equal to one another. The body or matter is the metaphysical principle that makes humans different from one another. Since humans are embodied spirits, the human soul is spiritual. According to the science of evolution, the human body evolved from animals, not the human soul.
Pasting that video is irrelevant to the fact that you made a logical error Niels. Sorry to call you out for being sloppy, but your atheism is sloppy, and it would benefit from being argued better.
I can’t prove I have a soul, and you can’t prove I do not. Much knowledge is a leap of faith.