Causal Incomprehension

Cable Viewer

COUPLED WITH THESE PSYCHOLOGICAL LIMITATIONS IS A GENERAL INCOMPREHENSION OF CASUALITY [sic]. ISLAM, WITH ITS EMPHASIS ON THE OMNIPOTENCE OF GOD, APPEARS TO ACCOUNT AT LEAST IN MAJOR PART FOR THIS PHENOMENON. SOMEWHAT SURPRISINGLY, EVEN THOSE IRANIANS EDUCATED IN THE WESTERN STYLE AND PERHAPS WITH LONG EXPERIENCE OUTSIDE IRAN ITSELF FREQUENTLY HAVE DIFFICULTY GRASPING THE INTER-RELATIONSHIP OF EVENTS. WITNESS A YAZDI RESISTING THE IDEA THAT IRANIAN BEHAVIOR HAS CONSEQUENCES ON THE PERCEPTION OF IRAN IN THE U.S. OR THAT THIS PERCEPTION IS SOMEHOW RELATED TO AMERICAN POLICIES REGARDING IRAN. THIS SAME QUALITY ALSO HELPS EXPLAIN PERSIAN AVERSION TO ACCEPTING RESPONSIBILITY FOR ONE’S OWN ACTIONS. THE DEUS EX MACHINA IS ALWAYS AT WORK.

This is a general problem for anyone who subscribes to the belief that the neologian Vox Day calls “omniderigence,” as well as any other form of determinism. Although I admire some qualities of Calvinists, I think this position is unsustainable. The basic problem is quite the same as it is presented by the atheists: omniderigence is too often just an excuse for laziness or cowardice. One must make distinctions between the cause of an event and the responsibility for an event; between the proximate cause and the cause-in-fact; between the entelechial cause and the material cause; and between the deterministic cause and a contributing factor. Basically, the projects to bundle everything into God’s hands or to acquire every possible datapoint in the universe (in order to “know” everything) are corrupt and pointless.

The rest of this particular item is interesting as a sociological analysis. As others have said, this batch of released documents increases my estimation of State Department officials.

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “Causal Incomprehension

  1. I am a great fan of Albert Einstein and agree with his lifelong determinism –

    “EVERYTHING is determined… by forces over which we have no control.” (my emphasis)

    My Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis PEH), derives directly from that foundation. All tangible evdence favors a planned phylogeny which has reached its climax and is no longer in progress. There has never been a role for chance in either ontogeny or phylogeny exactly as Leo Berg declared in 1922 –

    “Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance.”
    Nomogenesis, page 134

    The entire development of the individual from the egg results from the controlled release of information altready present in the egg with no role for the environment beyond supplying the necessary milieu allowing that process to take place. I, with others, have postulated that must have been true for evolution as well.

    Unfortunatey, the ruling Darwinian establishment has always assumed that the mechanism for organic evolution was understood with Natural Selection serving as the arbiter for what will survive and what will not with favorable changes gradually building the biota of the past and present. Nothing could be further from the truth. The sole purpose of natural selection has always been the same. It is to prevent change and maintain the status quo for as long as possible, a sequence which, with very few exceptions, has always ended in extinction. Again, Leo Berg properly identified the role of natural selection in phylogenesis –

    “The struggle for existence and natural selection are not progressive agencies, but being , on the contrary, conservative, maintain the standard.”
    Nomogenesis, page 406.

    NeoDarwnism has proven to be the most enduring hoax in the history of science. It has survived for one reason only. It is the only acceptable thesis for the atheist mindset. As such it has seriously impaired progress in evolutionary science. That such a doctrine still survives is the greatest scandal in the history biological science, receiving no support from either the fossil record or the experimental laboratory.

    The truth lies elsewhere in a scenario planned from beginning to end, one which as nearly as we can tell is now finished with the present biota. Only extinction remains and is already in progress without a single verified replacement.

    These facts have led me to the following summary.

    “A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”

    jadavison.wordpress.com

  2. I would grant the possibility that everything may be determined by forces over which we have no control, provided we accept that those forces may not be discoverable or even understandable.

    Determinism, as such, means nothing. Without absolute, quantifiable knowledge available to man, determinism is indistinguishable from randomness. Even if such knowledge were available to God (or produced by God), I would still say it is not available to man.

  3. I disagree. Einstein’s determinism means exactly what he said it meant. It has the same meaning as Robert Broom’s Plan, a word he capitalized to the distress of the atheist Darwinians. That is why they pretend he never existed. Determinism is the antithesis of randomness. That is why we know that Darwinism is without foundation.

    Both ontogeny and phylogeny demonstrate planned, determined sequences for which there is no role for the environment beyond that of allowing those Plans to be completed. Everything we have learned from molecular biology supports a determined, planned scenario, a scenario which, I am convinced, is now finished.

    Furthermore, there is no reason ever to assume that something can not be known. Such a perspective is not compatible with science.

    Forgive me for being so blunt. It is my nature.

    jadavison.wordpress.com

  4. I think that determinism as a philosophy is opposed to randomness, obviously. But unless all of the original conditions are known precisely, and the future course is shown to be predictable, it is simply a conjecture. If the final conditions in the future were all known, it would be a stronger conjecture; but then it would no longer be scientific, insofar as it would violate materialistic causal logic.

    Of course, if you are looking at a closed system (closed in time as well as space), it is even more reasonable to consider the possibility of absolute determinism. This would be your “determined, planned scenario” which is now finished. Nevertheless, since such a system could exist only in the past, all of its conditions cannot ever be known.

    I understand it is an article of faith for scientists that “there is no reason ever to assume that something can not be known.” Just because any particular thing can be known, however, does not mean that everything can be known. The database for all of the information in the universe, at every moment of its existence, would exceed the size of the universe itself. Even if everything could be known, it could not all be known simultaneously, except by God.

    Neo-Darwinian “randomness” is not really a threat to the conjecture of absolute determinism, however. It is plainly just a way for them to avoid the fact that they cannot possibly know all of the conditions acting on any particular organism.

  5. Neo-Darwinism is a threat to Western Civilization because it is an atheist inspired, intolerant dogma which attacks the very roots of the Judeo-Christian ethic. When Darwinists like Richard Dawkins can suggest that the Holy Father should be arrested the moment he sets foot on British soil and Pee Zee Myers finds it necessary to call him “bennie” and the President of the United States “asshole-in chief,” it is my contention that these persons are our enemies.

    Incidentally, there is no compelling reason to insist on a single God any more than there is to claim a monophyletic evolution. God or Gods may even be dead as Nietzsche claimed, but to deny the past existence of such entities as the Darwinians all do is not acceptable. It is my contention that everything we see in the animate world is the result of the actions of an unkown number of “spiritual entities” which MUST HAVE existed in the distant past. Everything else is conjecture. To assume that it is intrinsic in the nature of matter to self-assemble into a living , evolving creature even once is naive and in direct conflict with experimental science. If that were possible, it would have been demonstrated in the laboratory long ago.

    “It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it to be true.”
    Bertrand Russell

    I am not a philosopher and, like Einstein, I am unable to deal with that area. My conclusions are based on reality free of any philosophical construct.

    “Upon reading books on philosophy, I learned that I stood there like a blind man in front of a painting…the works of speculative philosophy are beyond my reach.”
    Alice Calaprice, The New Quotable Einstein, page 193.

    I discuss this matter in greater depth in my book –

    “Unpublished Evolution Papers of John A. Davison.” Lulu publishers

    jadavison.wordpress.com

  6. Neo-Darwinism is just another evasion by people who are afraid to admit to their limitations. So is atheism. As such, neither has lasting significance.

    What will last is what survives the next cultural shift. As computer and genetic technology function on a smaller scale and become more ubiquitous, science will become more reductionist and invisible. In desperation, those who believe in scientific utopia will turn to mythmaking and popular superstition to enact their political program. So the next great idolatry will be a pantheistic or shamanistic interpretation of science, which will certainly include some Darwinist superstitions.

    One of the redeeming features of your rhetoric, John, is the remarkable consistency of your evolutionary theory with a conservative Deism and cultural Catholicism. That consistency and the passion with which you defend it are more interesting to me than whether you are right.

  7. John, you said, “Incidentally, there is no compelling reason to insist on a single God any more than there is to claim a monophyletic evolution.”

    Are you sure?
    I think one possible reason is the fact that any omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being – the definition of “God” – holds a “necessary” existence.

    Omnipotence also raises a problem for multiple Gods; as William L. Craig notes, “Philosophers like Richard Swinburne have, indeed, argued for monotheism on the grounds that there cannot be a plurality of omnipotent beings because they could come into conflict with each other and so would limit each other’s power.

    …any other being that exists must be within the power of God to create or not. But then the existence of that being depends asymmetrically upon God. So God has power over it, while it lacks this power over God. So there can be at most one omnipotent God.”

    As far as God dying, that is would be impossible since, by definition, a necessary existence cannot cease to be.
    An omnipotent, eternal being cannot “die”.
    Death, as far as I know, is word that applies only to organic life.

    An existence that did not have a beginning, i.e. God, cannot “die”. Entropy cannot apply to omnipotence.

    Of course all this has little to do with Darwinism. 😉
    Darwin’s own materialism is what constituted the whole basis of his foolish notions. See Ben Wiker’s book, “The Darwin Myth:the life and lies of Charles Darwin” for more info on the roots of Darwin’s effort to rid science of God.

    • Sorry Gary; I didn’t know your comment was sitting in the moderation queue.

      I will let John speak for his conception of God. However, I will say that I don’t think that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being has a necessary existence. That requires God’s existence to rely too much on our ability to conceive of Him.

  8. Gary Hitch and Dave

    Sorry. I have been busy elsewhere getting myself abused and banished as usual.

    I am simply wielding Occam’s Razor and postulating only the absolute minimum that must be assumed. I have no firm convictions about God and neither did Einstein but I am convinced that one or more “entities” must have programmed the evolutionary sequence we call phylogeny as well as the sequence that controls the development of the adult from the egg (ontogeny). There is no doubt that both of these proceed on the basis of preformed instructions. I have always been impressed with Nietzsche’s “God is dead.” By my standard he was not an atheist.

    Incidentally there is no reason why God should be a male. The sole purpose of the male is to bring evolution to a screeching halt. Bisexual reproduction is incompetent even to produce new species. I don’t have the time to defend that position here but I provide the evidence in my book and in my peer reviewed publications.

    It is refreeshing to find a “forum” instead of a “groupthink.”

    jadavison.wordpress.com

Instigate some pointless rambling

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s