You mean about the difference between organisms and programs? I haven’t forgotten entirely, but it’s on the back-burner, compared other things I’m working on.

Nope, it was on my site and about my offending you with my greeting. Never mind, it’s not that important.

Carl, you asked me a question on one of my articles, and I answered. I’m just wondering if you forgot, and I’m also curious about your response?

You mean about the difference between organisms and programs? I haven’t forgotten entirely, but it’s on the back-burner, compared other things I’m working on.

They are actually reading and writing from the same type of general revelation that you are and it’s important to do away with mental illusions rooted in language.

I was, as I think you know, trying to make a point on that comment. I am not against any believer studying other religions (including Darwinism), or, for that matter, anything else. I have myself, but at some point, as you hinted at the end of your comment, we have to come to a decision and stand by it.

I might read a thousand texts about every religion, but unless I live in and experience that religion (for a great amount of time), in faith, my head is merely filled, for the most part, and beyond use in proselytizing, with useless information about it.

I believe God calls us to make a decision and stand in faith. Beyond a point, studying what I already know, according to my mind and faith, to be false is a waste of my time. Again, I am speaking for myself here!

For instance, Gould generally imagines that evolution happened in such a way that hardly any evidence is left that it actually happened. Imagine that!

I love it!

They are actually reading and writing from the same type of general revelation that you are and it’s important to do away with mental illusions rooted in language. But you’re right, it’s not as if everyone should study everything.

So given what you have said you are here to defend something which has not yet been specified. This is a general pattern typical to Darwinism as well. You mention the debates about species selection vs. gene vs. organism and so on. That’s because the “theory of evolution” is hypothetical goo which generally has not even been specified. To the extent that it has been specified it has generally been falsified.

On the topic of selection:

Darwin grasped with great clarity what most of his contemporaries never understood at all–that the question of agency, or levels of selection, lies at the heart of evolutionary causation. And he provided, from the depth of his personal convictions, the roots of his central premise, and the logic of his complete argument, a forthright answer that overturned a conceptual world–natural selection works on organisms engaged in a struggle for personal success, as assessed by the differential production of surviving offspring. (The Structure of Evolutionary Theory by Stephen Jay Gould :126)

Most charitable acts are an inversion of Darwinism to the extent that it is specified. To the extent that Darwinism is turned back into the hypothetical goo which typifies the “theory of evolution” from which it arose it remains largely imaginary. For instance, Gould generally imagines that evolution happened in such a way that hardly any evidence is left that it actually happened. Imagine that!

Those are the most relevant to Americans given that they are generally the political manifestations of Nature based religions or philosophies of Christian apostates. So if history is any measure if Americans increasingly adhere to philosophic naturalism and so on then similar patterns will emerge.

These are not bad examples to support the point, but in response, it should be enough to point out counter-examples such as Hinduism…

Hinduism may not be a counter-example because it is rooted in spiritual monism and it breaks down the distinction between human and animal. In fact the spiritual monism typical to it is similar to some notions of common descent given that both tend to be based on a mythological view of the biological unity of mankind with all things, although there are different schools of thought in Hinduism and Darwinism as well.

At any rate, the examples that are the most relevant to Americans are Communism and Nazism because they came about in cultures originally shaped by Christianity that degenerated into Nature based philosophies or religions. The rest is interesting to talk about but it’s not as relevant.

That’s why I asked if Mynym was actually familiar with any religions outside of Judaism and Christianity.

There are different schools of thought in all religions but the same patterns having to do with immanence and transcendence and the distinction between human and animal and so on that I’ve mentioned here seem to have a general application.

To answer your question I generally haven’t studied any religious texts extensively and that seems to me to be the only way to say something about religion specifically, although there may be other ways to study it. It seems to me that you would need to cite religious texts and so on but in the case of Hinduism the blurring of the basic natural categories like human and animal actually seems apparent and the results are generally quite poor.

Instead of pointing to Buddhists who essentially try to meditate on and believe nothing here’s an interesting question, what civilization has believed that the distinction between human and animal is not really that distinct and risen to new heights of technology, civility, etc.? It seems that the main distinction between humans and animals is language, language is linked to civilization (rule of law, right makes might, etc.) while dehumanization is linked to the absence of civilization (might makes right, etc.).

The most extreme examples are what we call genocides based on a biological view of mankind whether represented in Nazi propaganda portraying Jews as rats or what happened at the end of civilization in Rwanda:

During the 1994 genocide, tadio stations recited the names, addresses and vehicle numbersof prominent targets. They directed listeners to roadblocks wherethese “cockroaches” might be caught and killed. One announcer promised that this war would “exterminate the Tutsi from the globe.”(The Guardian (London) August 26, 2002 SECTION: Guardian Media Pages, Pg. 8 HEADLINE: Media: Mounting incitement: The recent conflicts in Rwanda, Bosnia and Afghanistan have underlined the dangerous power of propaganda in wartime BYLINE: Mark Thompson)

In pre-genocide Rwanda, hate propaganda taught that the minority Tutsis were outside human existence – that they were vermin and subhuman. They were called cockroaches and the hunting down and murder of Tutsis “and their Hutu accomplices” were described as communal work, necessary to “cleanse the country”. (The Times (London) March 4, 1999, Thursday SECTION: Features HEADLINE: The record for killing by machete was 1,000 every 20 minutes BYLINE: Linda Melvern)

You might point out that Hindus believe that cockroaches may be the reincarnation of the minds of people so someone could have argued for human rights through animal rights* in some way. That’s possible but it has little relevance to what actually happens at the end of Christian civilizations or the end of civilization in the West.

*The same arguments may be necessary in America, given that unborn animals have more rights under the law than unborn humans one could try to argue for human rights through “animal rights.” Unfortunately anything which passes through a Nature based pagan inversion of reason never seems to turn out quite right.

Naturalism is generally a word empty of content or meaning and on your own account you doubt that anyone knows what it means so it’s not apparent what you mean by it or exactly what you think you are defending.

Yes, you’re right. At any event the traditional concept of “nature” is intelligible in relation to the concept of “God” and of “humanity” — so if I were to call myself a naturalist, I would need to articulate what concept of nature I’m appealing to.

You seem to be making a caricature of ‘dehumanization’. It doesn’t necessarily have to be as extreme as sending humans to slaughterhouses.

True, it doesn’t have to be that extreme. Though I am willing to make use of the concept in order to express my criticisms of what I see around me everyday.

The debate stems from addressing the foundations upon which those worldviews sit (and we know you’d rather discuss hypothetical interpolations and extrapolations based on those foundations, rather than the foundations themselves, which is fine if that’s your passion)

I wouldn’t put it quite that way. I would say that I’ve come to think, based on somevarious philosophical arguments that I’ve considered, that there are serious difficulties with trying to evaluate world-views in terms of “foundations.”

On the other hand, I also understand — at least, I think I do! — why this language is important for you. That is, I understand the interconnections between the concept of foundations and the concept of absolute truth.

But this only goes to point out the vanity of philosophical and theological exegesis, because it’s very easy to lose site of real, lived life, while identifying it in terms “isms”. Epiphanies are not borne in “isms”. Meaning must be “lived” after all.

I agree entirely.