Kensington news is brought to you by the team at Whangārei Leader
Recent posts
Thank you for using Neighbourly
The 2018 Māori Electoral Option giving Māori voters the chance to choose between being on the Māori …
Whangarei MP, Dr Shane Reti, says after more than a week, he is frustrated to hear nothing further f…
The following picture is taken from an article that appeared in The Northern Advocate some time ago.
The overriding consensus among mainstream media can, without fear of contradiction, be termed secular, so the following I put forward because, unless you have this particular interest, this is … View moreThe following picture is taken from an article that appeared in The Northern Advocate some time ago.
The overriding consensus among mainstream media can, without fear of contradiction, be termed secular, so the following I put forward because, unless you have this particular interest, this is not something that you will see or hear otherwise.
In the early development of the scientific method, in the distillation of ideas which largely grew out of the battle between empiricists and the rationalists- a consensus emerged by unwritten decree, that nature, that is the material realm was best studied without reference to the metaphysical, or rather the immaterial realm. This became the epistemological basis for science. It is comprehensively known as methodological naturalism. It grew largely out of the realization that every effect was preceded by a cause, and that cause itself could be explained and was an effect of yet another preceding cause. While this model works admirably in all proximate causes, it breaks down at the origin of the Universe.
The instantiation of the Universe is now almost universally recognized- not just as theoretically possible- but now has empirical evidence to support it, as having a beginning. Therefore, an infinite regress of causes is- if not impossible- then at least less and less likely- as more evidence comes to light.
It is fascinating that the theoretical discovery of the Big Bang and it's consequent ratification through empirical data was already prefigured some 800 years ago, by a logical argument (known as the Cosmological Argument), for the existence of God, one of its earliest formulations notably submitted by 13th century theologian, Thomas Aquinas. His argument may be best described as an inference from two sources of knowledge. In philosophy, "Revealed knowledge" is that which is taken to be true from works such as the Bible, and the other "Empirical or experimental knowledge", being that which is taken to be true from experience and observation.
What is even more remarkable is that the first few lines of the Hebrew Bible, what we term The Old Testament, was written (depending on which authority you listen to) between three thousand and three and a half thousand years ago, which offers an account for the beginning which bears remarkable parallels to the Big Bang.
For Aquinas, the opening verses of Genesis, "In the beginning God created...." was authoritative. But knowing the human penchant for skepticism, he also believed that grounding this revelatory knowledge in observations drawn from nature would help people hold the idea of revelatory knowledge in higher regard, if he could but convince people that nature itself was not in conflict with revealed knowledge- but that it indeed supported it.
“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” ― Robert Jastrow, 'God and the Astronomers'
'Thomas' Argument from Efficient Cause begins with the empirical observation of causal sequence in the world. Hence, this argument is an à posteriori argument, and the conclusion is not claimed to follow with certainty.
The Argument from Efficient Cause:
There is an efficient cause for everything; nothing can be the efficient cause of itself.
It is not possible to regress to infinity in efficient causes.
To take away the cause is to take away the effect.
If there be no first cause then there will be no others.
Therefore, a First Cause exists (and this is God).' (philosophy.lander.edu...)
Where does the buck stop?
A common retaliation to this argument is- that if the first line is true (There is an efficient cause for everything; nothing can be the efficient cause of itself.) then what caused God?
But that is a false dilemma. By simply altering the first line of Aquinas' argument. "There is an efficient cause for everything that begins to exist..." God, being eternal, all that begins to exist is grounded in his own nature. Gods own nature is the efficient ultimate cause for all that begins to exist. (The same holds for the Euthyphro dilemma, in regard to the Moral argument for the existence of God. God's nature is the ground of moral good, and therefore God is not "under" the moral law, but the very ground of its existence.)
For the theist it simply stops with the uncaused cause- aka God.
But for a physicalist- believing that nothing exists outside of matter- there must be, according to his faith in materialism- a cause from within the materialist view of reality, a material cause. Before there was nothing (no material thing) what caused everything (every material thing)? Hence Hawking's surmise- and that's all it is- 'because there is a law of gravity the universe can and will create itself from nothing' This is a philosophical claim, it is made on the basis of faith in materialism.
For most of our advances in scientific knowledge materialism has worked superbly well. It has worked, in a manner of speaking too well.
By that I mean that what has emerged is a worldview known as philosophical naturalism, which I think had a very meagre following in the early days, given that for most of the worlds history, reality was almost without exception viewed from a religious perspective at the back of all natural events. For others, whose intention is to make the argument appear much more authoritative, by garnering support from the common view that only science can teach us about reality, it may be termed a scientific worldview.
Gradually, because of outstanding results, armed by the knowledge that everything thus explored, could apparently be explained in terms of nature without reference to a supernature, the supernatural worldview that was the dominant, extant feature behind all thought, was given over in favour of explaining everything in terms of nature alone. This was most famously recorded in Napoleons exchange with the French scholar Pierre-Simon Laplace.
When Napoleon, who had a penchant for embarrassing questions, asked why there was no mention of God in his work, La Place replied: Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là. "I had no need of that hypothesis."
That it was probably intended as an embarrassing question just shows how far things have changed.
And thus the commitment to methodological naturalism became articulated by many as a commitment to philosophical naturalism- an allegiance, or faith in the idea that nature is all there is.
My post about "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" was in reference to this shift from methodological naturalism to a faith in philosophical naturalism. (www.neighbourly.co.nz...)
And who cannot understand the predilection for this? After all- the natural world is so much more accessible to us as sentient beings than anything beyond nature. Nature's proclivity for lending itself to examination by everything from microscopes to telescopes is more than enough to occupy us and live in continuous thrall to it's mysteries.
But that in itself gave pause for thought- and still does- for thoughtful people.
I cannot find the quote, but I believe it was Blaise Pascal who described humanity as creatures suspended 'twixt heav'n and earth. Between the material and the immaterial. The following quotes express something of this.
"Man is equally incapable of seeing the nothingness from which he emerges and the infinity in which he is engulfed."
"It is dangerous to explain too clearly to man how like he is to the animals without pointing out his greatness. It is also dangerous to make too much of his greatness without his vileness. It is still more dangerous to leave him in ignorance of both, but it is most valuable to represent both to him. Man must not be allowed to believe that he is equal either to animals or to angels, nor to be unaware of either, but he must know both." Blaise Pascal
The materialist worldview has great difficulty in satisfactorily explaining morality, consciousness, meaning and purpose, love, the arts, the origin of life, the Universe from nothing- to name but a few.
Every worldview should be appraised on its ability to unify all knowledge. Just as the cosmologist Stephen Hawking was looking for the big T.O.E. (theory of everything) to unify all physics, it is incumbent on all worldviews to account for all knowledge from a unified perspective. The greater the consistency and overall coherence on a broad scale that a worldview offers- that is able to account for the study of how we know things (epistemology) and on the study of being or existence, (ontology), as in every other domain- the more cohesive it is, the greater warrant it should have for a thinking person.
I think this highlights the inadequacy of a strictly materialist worldview to account for realities that crop up when philosophical naturalism is taken to its ultimate logical conclusions and proves essentially to be unliveable without "borrowing" unconsciously from the Christian, (or at least the theistic), worldview.
I will use one example of this ambivalence from an outspoken atheist.
"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference... DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music."
― Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life
Dawkins physicalist view is critiqued by Klaus Nurnberger in his book- Richard Dawkins' God Delusion: A Repentant Refutation:
"...At least in this passage his approach is one of stark physical and biological reductionism. Reductionism denies meaning and purpose not only for the impersonal infrastructure of human consciousness, but for reality as such and as a whole, including the personal level of reality.
The question is how Dawkins himself can live with this idea. Does he really see himself as the victim of the evolutionary process without will, purpose and agency? Does he dance to the tune of his genes? Did he not decide to do research, publish books, and passionately propagate his atheistic stance? Is there really no trace of meaning in his life?...To deny meaning and purpose at this level of emergence is to deny humankind its humanity This can hardly be denied.
For Dawkins this pitilessly functioning universe is all there is. There is no transcendence. If nature were indeed absolute, we would be imprisoned within its dark shell without any chance of escape whatsoever. We would have no choice but to dance to the tune of chance mutations and their survival or demise in an environmental niches. We would be the helpless toys and victims of a blind impersonal fate. As I have repeatedly argued, a sense of freedom and responsibility simply cannot emerge on this basis. It is hard to imagine how Dawkins, if he took this stance seriously, could have escaped dismissive cynicism and disempowering fatalism of the worst kind.
In fact he doesn't...On the contrary, he displays a defiant and dismissive self-certainty in his attitude to nature, life and other people. The question is on which kind of spiritual resource he draws to keep alive, active and purposeful- certainly not those of his Darwinian and naturalist convictions! The answer came when I read a passage that displays a "passionate defence of human dignity and freedom in the face of genetic determinism":
Dawkins:
"We have the power to defy the selfish genes of our birth and, if necessary, the selfish memes of our indoctrination. We can even discuss ways of deliberately cultivating and nurturing pure, disinterested altruism- something that has no place in nature, something that has never existed before in the whole history of the world. We are built as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our creators. We, alone on earth can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators."
Nurnberger:
'So this is where his existential sustenance is rooted- in the mastery of the human subject over its own impersonal infrastructure. Nature is not the ultimate authority; the human being is. Human sovereignty depends on the human determination to master and transform reality into a tool for achieving humanity's purposes. The same is true for the meaningfulness of human life. Dawkins scornfully rejects the idea that atheists are nihilists. "The truly adult view...is that our life is as meaningful and as wonderful as we choose to make it" '
Numberger admirably demonstrates the incoherence of Dawkins- who goes at great length to reduce humanity to genetic determinism on the one hand and with the other- like the flourish of the magicians hand- produces the rabbit out of the hat, proclaiming loudly and confidently the ultimacy in human autonomy and a life brimful of meaning if we so choose.
Having the cake and eating it as well.
But what is the point of all this philosophy? Is there a practical value?
The influence of thinkers, like Dawkins, on culture is profound, that's why it's so important to think carefully about what he and others, like Stephen Hawking promote.
Victor Frankl, a holocaust survivor and himself a psychoanalyst- came to recognize the inherent danger in irresponsible evaluations of what it means to be human. Even our perceptions of human nature can themselves act as channels of influence in our behaviour.
"If we present man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present man as an automaton of reflexes … as a pawn of drives and reactions, as a mere product of instinct, heredity and environment, we feed the nihilism to which modern man is, in any case, prone. I became acquainted, with the last stage of that corruption in … Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment-or, as the Nazi liked to say, of 'Blood and Soil.' I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some Ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in the lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers.”
When a society continues to give more and more weight to philosophical systems that inexorably and inextricably undermine all that we have in the past held sacred about humanity- it should be no surprise that we will, in turn, reap a horrible harvest.
I think we are seeing this reality daily.
Housesitters available for homes with or without Pets.
My wife and I are available for house sitting. We take care of your loved pets and home and the only times left available this year is from the 15th April to the 7th May and again from the 22nd Sept to 25th Oct.
We have many glowing 5 … View moreHousesitters available for homes with or without Pets.
My wife and I are available for house sitting. We take care of your loved pets and home and the only times left available this year is from the 15th April to the 7th May and again from the 22nd Sept to 25th Oct.
We have many glowing 5 star references available, as we have been housesitting for many people around the Whangarei and outer regions. We are self employed and have an online business, which means we can transport ourselves easily.
Due to a cancellation, we are currently available for a house sit anytime between the above dates.
Ph/Txt: Veronica on 0210663517, looking forward to hearing from you!
Around 50 people from across New Zealand gathered in Kerikeri last week for the country's first Envi…
A Landmark report is suggesting our rural roads should be reduced to 70kmh. So, is it a good idea?
To read more click here.
Both the Northland Police and Northland District Health Board are confident the Te Ara Oranga Metham…
The Transport Agency advises motorists in Northland that further roadworks are about to start on State Highway 1 near Oakleigh and will involve night closures..
The new work is focused on repairs and resurfacing of the three Mata Bridges between Oakleigh and Ruakaka.
This new work is in … View moreThe Transport Agency advises motorists in Northland that further roadworks are about to start on State Highway 1 near Oakleigh and will involve night closures..
The new work is focused on repairs and resurfacing of the three Mata Bridges between Oakleigh and Ruakaka.
This new work is in addition to the ongoing night-time road repairs at Oakleigh which started in early February. Those works are taking longer than expected because of the wet summer weather and now won’t be finished until after Easter, says the Transport Agency’s System Manager Steve Mutton.
If you’re Māori and enrolled to vote, look out for your Māori Electoral Option pack in the mail. You can choose to be on the Māori roll or General roll.
The Closing of the American Mind is a: "1987 book by Allan Bloom that made the NY Times bestseller list. It describes 'how higher education has failed democracy and impoverished the souls of today's students.' He focuses especially upon the 'openness' of relativism as … View moreThe Closing of the American Mind is a: "1987 book by Allan Bloom that made the NY Times bestseller list. It describes 'how higher education has failed democracy and impoverished the souls of today's students.' He focuses especially upon the 'openness' of relativism as leading paradoxically to the great 'closing' referenced in the book's title. Bloom argues that 'openness' and absolute understanding undermines critical thinking and eliminates the 'point of view' that defines cultures." [For Bloom, openness in this sense refers to the openness of relativism where all ideas are treated and seen to be equal and should be received 'openly' as equal and valid and thus denies the exclusive nature of objective truth]
The Closing of the American Mind is a critique of "the contemporary university and how Bloom sees it as failing its students. In it, Bloom criticizes the modern movements in philosophy and the humanities. Philosophy professors involved in ordinary language analysis or logical positivism disregard important 'humanizing' ethical and political issues and fail to pique the interest of students. Literature professors involved in deconstructionism promote irrationalism and skepticism of standards of truth and thereby dissolve the moral imperatives which are communicated through genuine philosophy and which elevate and broaden the intellects of those who engage with these imperatives. To a great extent, Bloom's criticism revolves around his belief that the 'great books' of Western thought have been devalued as a source of wisdom. Bloom's critique extends beyond the university to speak to the general crisis in American society."(Wikipedia)
And, as they say, when America sneezes, New Zealand gets pneumonia!
Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Berkeley, Oxford, Cambridge and others were all Universities founded on Christian principles. The "queen" of the disciplines by which all the other disciplines were centered around was Theology, because the knowledge of God was the presupposition of all the other branches of knowledge, it was, so to speak, seen as the glue that held it all together, it helped make sense of everything else.
Dallas Willard Phd was an American philosopher also known for his writings on Christian spiritual formation. He was Professor of Philosophy at the University of Southern California, L.A.
He renewed the call to have a targeted skepticism towards secularism and how it and other philosophical pressures have so reshaped these learning institutions. He speaks about how instead of fostering open inquiry many universities are now acting as a huge authority:
'Over a period of time theology and all that was built around it disappeared from the universities, ...the university system in its history ... in the Western world, was built around things like John 3:16*. People actually believed it and they thought that it was a part of knowledge for the most part, that's a fact, now here's a question: What happened? How did that change come about? How did it come about that this was set aside, and instead of this kind of truth -secularism takes its place?
'I'm not questioning that, I'm just saying how did it happen? Generally speaking, people don't know how it happened. Was it that someone somewhere found out that John 3:16 was false? Or that it was not knowledge or something of that sort? Well a lot of people have thought that but if you were forced to trace it down and make it stick it might be hard to do. And so this is where we need to be skeptical. We need to be skeptical about John 3:16, we need to make it a topic of inquiry, but we also need to be skeptical about secularism. See one of the hardest things to do- is to be skeptical about the things that are in most need of skepticism. And if anything could be done about that on the campuses it would be a great renewal of intellectual life on the campuses. Now you have to look at the consequences of rejecting religious truth from the domain of truth, of identifying it with feelings. Where does that leave you? What does secularism give you to live by? '
'So you're secular- congratulations... What's next? And once we've got away from the idea that we need to get away from religion- then we have got to face the question- of what we're going to live by. And that is where our skepticism needs to take hold- it needs to drive us to inquiry and we need to go back to things that often look very familiar, but in fact really aren't, and we haven't thought about very much- on both sides of the question, secularism or God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son...Skepticism is vital in education and we need to have a revival of it, targeted skepticism to help us pursue the knowledge that we need to live by and not just to pass courses.'
All of this points to the value of targeted skepticism, that we need to ask questions and we need to learn what the right questions are. The problem with education is it becomes institutionalized, that is, it becomes an unquestionable authority in its own right, and in as much it is institutionalized it ceases to promote knowledge. Truth becomes a matter of current "orthodoxy" the accepted view of reality and questions are not allowed of that orthodoxy. Open dialogue is 'verboten'. The areas of concern in these institutions are many and varied. One area is when the theory of evolution cannot be questioned, why intelligent design is not considered.
People become afraid to speak or ask questions because it could mean lower grades, or loss of opportunity or even- as is now documented- employment discrimination on the basis of belief, for even questioning the status quo. We need to ask these serious questions of other institutions also, particularly the Church which is after all the bastion of religious truth, knowledge and morality. This may not involve any change in current "orthodoxy" but it will- if questions are asked and encouraged- effectively guarantee a maturity that would otherwise fail to take place.
More recent development reveals a growing intolerance towards having controversial speakers attend conferences or give lectures.
On top of this "dumbing down" of education, just when adolescents are facing the prospect of living independently in a tough world- instead of preparing them to face the challenges- tertiary institutions have taken a backwards step and are imposing an overprotective regime, which will soon no doubt, (if it hasn't already), reverberate in other stratas of society.
Excerpt from "The Atlantic" written by JONATHAN HAIDT AND GREG LUKIANOFF (www.theatlantic.com...)
'Recently, the psychologist Lisa Feldman Barrett, a highly respected emotion researcher at Northeastern University, published an essay in The New York Times titled, 'When is speech violence?' She offered support from neuroscience and health-psychology research for students who want to use the word “violence” in this expansive way. The essay made two points that we think are valid and important, but it drew two inferences from those points that we think are invalid.
First valid point: "Chronic stress can cause physical damage." Feldman Barrett cited research on the ways that chronic (not short-term) stressors “can make you sick, alter your brain—even kill neurons—and shorten your life.” The research here is indeed clear.
First invalid inference: Feldman Barrett used these empirical findings to advance a syllogism: “If words can cause stress, and if prolonged stress can cause physical harm, then it seems that speech—at least certain types of speech—can be a form of violence.” ... But following this logic, the resulting inference should be merely that words can cause physical harm, not that words are violence. If you’re not convinced, just re-run the syllogism starting with “gossiping about a rival,” for example, or “giving one’s students a lot of homework.” Both practices can cause prolonged stress to others, but that doesn’t turn them into forms of violence.
Feldman Barrett’s second valid point lies in her argument that young people are antifragile—they grow from facing and overcoming adversity:
"Offensiveness is not bad for your body and brain. Your nervous system evolved to withstand periodic bouts of stress, such as fleeing from a tiger, taking a punch or encountering an odious idea in a university lecture. Entertaining someone else’s distasteful perspective can be educational. ... When you’re forced to engage a position you strongly disagree with, you learn something about the other perspective as well as your own. The process feels unpleasant, but it’s a good kind of stress — temporary and not harmful to your body — and you reap the longer-term benefits of learning.
In Feldman Barrett’s second invalid inference, she writes:
"That’s why it’s reasonable, scientifically speaking, not to allow a provocateur and hatemonger like Milo Yiannopoulos to speak at your school. He is part of something noxious, a campaign of abuse. There is nothing to be gained from debating him, for debate is not what he is offering."
Contrast this with the following from the same article:
'As Van Jones put it in response to a question by David Axelrod about how progressive students should react to ideologically offensive speakers on campus:
"I don’t want you to be safe, ideologically. I don’t want you to be safe, emotionally. I want you to be strong. That’s different. I’m not going to pave the jungle for you. Put on some boots, and learn how to deal with adversity. I’m not going to take all the weights out of the gym; that’s the whole point of the gym. This is the gym".
The entire essay from the atlantic is well worth the read, and ought to be considered in reference to how we conduct ourselves on Neighbourly.
My final reference to the article is this:
'In a 2010 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit—Rodriguez v. Maricopa County Community College District—Chief Judge Alex Kozinski noted “...the urge to censor is greatest where debate is most disquieting and orthodoxy most entrenched…” He then explained the special nature of universities, using terms that illustrate Rauch’s Liberal Science:
"The right to provoke, offend, and shock lies at the core of the First Amendment. This is particularly so on college campuses. Intellectual advancement has traditionally progressed through discord and dissent, as a diversity of views ensures that ideas survive because they are correct, not because they are popular. Colleges and universities—sheltered from the currents of popular opinion by tradition, geography, tenure and monetary endowments—have historically fostered that exchange. But that role in our society will not survive if certain points of view may be declared beyond the pale."
*John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Free to good home. 129H x 94W x 52D.
No remote but controls on front panel.
Free delivery possible within Whangarei
Rob Hansen has a shed policy for his grandchildren – no sad faces, no grumpy faces – but says everyo…
Show your neighbourhood how much you love it by getting involved in The Great Community Clean Up 2018. You could win great prizes so make sure you register a clean up event before 22 April.
Taking part in the Great Community Clean Up is easy: grab your friends, your neighbours (or your and … View moreShow your neighbourhood how much you love it by getting involved in The Great Community Clean Up 2018. You could win great prizes so make sure you register a clean up event before 22 April.
Taking part in the Great Community Clean Up is easy: grab your friends, your neighbours (or your and simply pick up a little litter in your street, tidy your favourite park, or remove bits and bobs from a nearby beach. Take part in 2018!
As of Monday 9th of April we will be changing to our winter hours Monday-Sunday 8:30-5pm
Great deals to be had this Easter weekend 30% off all trees and shrubs find yourself a bargain, have a break and have a spot of lunch and a coffee at cafe Botannix and pick yourself up a beautiful bunch of flowers from our florist. Happy Easter everyone 🐇🐣🐥
© Neighbourly 2024
Loading…
