darwin's monkeys

Here we explore the fine preachy words of a committed christian, John Stonestreet, who hates atheists and sciences walking onto his morality patch and on god’s non-relative vernacular. He also hates (less than scientists mind you) postmodernists, though they “apparently” hate (or dismiss) the same things (atheists and sciences) than him, but use deconstruction instead of God as a prop for their hate. Here we skip a lot of fluff and go directly to John Stonestreet's attack on a (female) scientist named Heying:

…

But what Heying fails to acknowledge in her critique is that the "postmodern mood" was a reaction to the failures of the Enlightenment project that Heying lionizes.

Her phrase "ultimate tool kit" contains more than a whiff of scientism, the claim that "natural science does or soon will constitute the entire domain of truth." Her talk of "ideas," "discovery," and "progress" is selective, and, frankly self-serving.

In her telling, "science" deserves the credit for all the good stuff and no blame for any of the bad. Science can't be blamed for eugenics, weapons of mass destruction or social Darwinism, but it should be praised for vaccines, indoor plumbing and going to the moon.

This special pleading is why I have a love-hate relationship with what folks call postmodernism. For all of the contradictions, deficiencies, and self-anointed justice elitists that it has given us, it critiques scientism's unwarranted claims to objectivity and superiority. Albeit without the proper theological concept, it acknowledges that human reason is fallen. Unfortunately, it treats human feeling as if they're not.

Look, as postmodernist Richard Rorty once observed, "only a God with equal measures of truth, justice, and love" is the solid foundation for true knowledge. Unfortunately, Rorty dismissed that God a priori.

But anyone who seeks truth would be wise to start with God instead. It's the only way to avoid the rocky shoals of treating the scientific method as the "ultimate tool kit" and the deadly postmodern whirlpool of radical subjectivity.

read more:https://www.christianpost.com/news/navigating-between-postmodernism-scientism-christianity-avoids-worldview-hazards.html

Yes… But John, Dear Christian Post Guest Columnist, here's a Gus adaptation of a famous bible critic...

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s own Kit. I have learned a great deal from your rabbles, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. Not quite really as we have to admit, me and my neighbour, we dream of having a ménage à trois with a couple of lesbians each — or become royalty so we can have (own) several wives and a few concubines like King David...

I do need some advice, furthermore, regarding some of the specific biblical laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? Invite them to the barbecue? burn them alive with the beast? Like witches and Joan of Arc?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? I've already sold my grandmother for barely six pence (she was useless) and I’m flat broke...

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. Should I skirt the direct question by asking them if they’re pregnant? Or should I ask the toad walking behind them?

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians? For Australians, in a country girt by sea, the question of slavery had to be resolved by using locals and Kanaks. Is this contrary to the word of God?...

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself? Guns, axe, poisons, arrows, spear? Or as punishment, should I ask him to build me a man-shed while I’m in church?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? This is highly relevant for Aussies (especially for Sydneysiders) who eat a lot of prawns at Christmas.

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? Or should I beg Jesus for a miracle before entering the temple? Or is this an allegory for not seeing God because he’s not there?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die? Guns, axe, poisons, arrows, spear? Or should I encourage them to use gel to look more hip?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? Would fine pigskin gloves do? What about unclean women (article c) playing sport with a swine's ball or two?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone my relatives? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14). What about the killing of fish by the Aussie cotton farmers because they take all the water from the rivers? Should we kill them and deprive ourselves of cloth? Or should we encourage the cotton farmers to have a go at polyester farming which needs far less water?

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

adapted from :
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1914

———————————

Gus:
The Enlightenment (scientific) project did not fail. It’s a work in progress (fluxing due to human delusions) with to and fro stations, including AI and postmodernism — while too many people are still eager to go to heaven… a place which does not exist, despite religious beliefs that are self-serving, unlike a collection plate.

And yes, sciences CAN'T be blamed for eugenics, weapons of mass destruction or social Darwinism, but should be (may be?) praised for vaccines (some people object), indoor plumbing (and sewage, including the Potomac sewer called the US government) and going to the moon (some people think it’s a hoax)...

Eugenics are an arbitrary interpretation (an art form — a bad choice) of nastily applying sciences in regard to value of race, origin or color (which religion never did so, being selective with God's chosen people?) — and thus are not sciences.

Same with weapons of mass destruction. They are technical requirements from the mad psychos we elect (we must be psycho too), and who get engineers to use scientific knowledge for such WMDs. Imagine a local fool buying guns and shooting schoolchildren. Should we blame the guns? Should we blame the seller(s) of the guns? Yes and yes, maybe for sure… It can be demonstrated that guns are multiplying the desire to kill. By comparison, doing weapons of mass destruction demands an entirely different proposition, considering an entire social network has to be complicit — including religious people who think guns are okay and that war is okay (God even encouraged “his” people to go to war) with atomic bombs, but not chemicals. WMDs and wars demand far mightier procurement efforts and hypocritical intent than a local fool using a gun bought at Wallmart...

Social Darwinism is a curly one. Happy that you brought it up. Social Darwinism is the application of the evolutionary concept of natural selection to human society. We know it does not work, because we’re naturally too devious and the ratio of dumb people to the clever ones is too high (see statistical image at top). The term Social Darwinism was used from the 1880s and gained acceptance after the 1940s by the opponents of such Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is not sciences, but a complex silly choice of badly applying the evolution of rats (or honorable chimps) to our art-formed/psychopathically controlled social constructs. 

Social Darwinism should not be confused with humanism nor with secularity, which both allow for compassion, justice and the understanding of cultural identity. All religions confuse compassion with charity (they are not they only ones — philanthropes often do as well), they think justice stops at the Solomon’s split — and they have very little undestanding of cultural identity, except on their own narrow terms. That’s why some lone missionaries get shot — though missionaries in goosesteps with invading armies are protected.

Now, a question. Should most religious organisations, from Christians to Muslims, be blamed for the problem of overpopulation by breeding like Irish rabbits or Arabian desert rats — or should sciences (medicines) be blamed instead, for saving lives at birth and delaying death (getting to heaven, which does not exist, too bloody late when totally Alzheimered for the profit of retirement villages’ owners) for many? Is there an overpopulation problem, I hear you say?… Is global warming real? What's a gas?

These are the sort of questions that the silly postmodernists ask, including should women be “equal to men” in pay and be part of the controls and decisions about social values. So far, all religions are designed by old men (including god Himself often depicted as such) to control others, and especially make women submit. 

Amen to that… On that last issue, I failed miserably.



Gus Leonisky 

local drunk atheist and feminist

See also:
http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/27819