You forgot to include atheism in your comment oj.

How do we humans know that only humans are self-conscious ?

How would one design a way to find out ?

OK, the Bene Gesserit had a test, but IMO it tests discipline more than self-awareness.

The purpose of science -- here dismissed as 'sciencism' -- is to try to actually tell the truth about the world, regardless of whose emotional oxen get gored. If that's amorality, then I prefer it to the putative morality of its alternative.

Mr. Schwarz:

Ah, the claim of "Truth", vital to all religions...

The purpose of science is to learn the truth about the physical universe. The absolute faith in the ever changing face of science through rationalism is the problem. Those who are committed to the materialist faith just can't accept the fact that human nature may just be beyond any complete or absolute understanding. It must reject anything beyond a material answer to many questions which only a theistic belief system can resolve. The entire structure of western civilization, i.e., the place of the individual in realtion to the collective, the underlying respect for human life and the understanding that human beings are imperfect or fallen is characteristic of faith rather than reason. Without those faith based assumptions there are no reasons to check the growth of the collective which will inevitably, as it always has in the past, morph into the totalitarianism of the past.It is of course perfectly reasonable to aknowledge the simple fact that without God, the state, the collective, the race or the class has nothing but itself to answer to.

Tom, you are the one who keeps claiming to have the Truth.

Of course, the Truth changes with the seasons. I believe you are some kind of Christian. Yet I bet you do not share as many as half the beliefs that Christians of 200 or 300 years ago did.

Where do you stand on infant damnation?

Harry, where do I claim to have the absolute truth? I am not wedded to any materialistic ideology. As far as science is concerned, my mind is open. I am sceptical, and always have been, regarding fellow human beings who claim such absolutes within the soft sciences. The theories of Marx, Freud and Dariwn present the best examples of theoretical frameworks which are beyond any absolute proof yet furnish the basis for who would like to organize human affairs along the lines of pure secular materialism.

I don't have a "stand" regarding infant damnation and those who do are silly. The hypocrisy you cite as some kind of defining characteristic of the pronouncemts of fallible human beings is news only to you.

Tom:

"It must reject anything beyond a material answer to many questions which only a theistic belief system can resolve."

But which theistic belief system? How would you decide? How would you know the theistic belief system had actually resolved those questions?

Your question is a good example of containing underlying assumptions taken as true, though remaining to be proven.

Harry's point is that what Christians take to be true now wasn't true several hundred years ago. The concept of infant damnation is just one example. One might just as well ask whether one must accept Jesus as one's savior to gain salvation. That would seem to put an awfully high premium on an accident of birth. Is the concept true, or not?

Wrong, Tom. You do have a stand on infant damnation. You consider it of small consequence.

Not so long ago, Christians considered it to be of great consequence.

See, Christian beliefs are amorphous, changeable, no rock to found anything on.

Flew contends that the requirement to make choices is what defines humans as human. We cannot not make choices.

If, it turns out later, God thinks the issue of infant damnation is very important, it is like to go hard with you.

Jeff-

Within the context of western civilization and the principles which are the foundation of the United States of America, theism is all that is required. Obviously, the Judeo-Christian influence on the Hellenic-Roman tradition is that of the west and so has much to recomend it. I would think, in light of history, that such a tradition, I think you may agree, should be acknowledged and encouraged rather than ignored or denigrated.

Harry, not having a "stand" on infant damnation, inother words, "I have no idea", means I'm taking a stand? What difference does it make what ancient Christians believed regarding infant damantion or witchcraft or alchemy or whatever else they believed with no theological basis.

Why is it that only atheists are so determined to note all of the examples of human hypocrisy and fallibility of the theist while overlooking all of the tragedy of official atheism? Unlike materialists, theists do not expect human perfection.

Jeff:

Everyone will get the opportunity to accept Christ as their savior.

Even Harry's infants.

I'm not talking about ancient Christians, Tom, I'm talking about your great grandparents.

And they considered infant damnation a key point of theology and were willing to persecute people who disagreed with them.

You really don't know much about your religion, do you?

Tom:

More than theism is required--there has never been an atheistic society. Communist included. "The Triumph of the West" by JM Roberts, and "The Wealth and Poverty of Nations" by David S. Landes both give credit to Christianity, particularly the Protestant variation thereof.

They make a persuasive case.

They also make a persuasive case that the story is far more complex than a single factor analysis will allow. The historical contingencies surrounding Christianity's development meant it could never be the state. Not that it didn't yearn for such power. But given the presence of the Roman empire, Christianity was never able to wield the secular power Islam has.

The conclusion to draw is that given different circumstances having nothing to do with religious belief, things could have turned out much differently. The thought experiment of swapping time & place between Islam and Christianity doesn't necessarily lead to triumphalism.

Additionally, part and parcel of Western Civilization is analytical skepticism. It is antagonistic to dogmatic faith, and what distinguishes the West from religiously bound societies.

Materialists don't expect perfection anywhere. One can't both believe in evolution and perfection. The concepts are no more alike than chalk and cheese.

Except that Darwinist believe the entire process rendered us at the top of the pyramid--we are evolutionary perfection. That's why it's so attractive to people looking for an alternative religion. If the theory was that we decline from an apex no one would have faith in it.

Humans are far from "evolutionary perfection"...
Look to the ant, shark, or alligator for that.

What humans are, is the baddest predator on Earth.
It remains to be seen what, or who, stands the test of time.

Sharks and alligators have both been put on endangered species list, while Man could leave the planet and then blow it up, destroying all competing life forms. Can ants do that?

How very Leninist of you, Orrin. A man says one thing, and you deduce that he means the opposite.

I take him at his word, that it is a philosophy:

"Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science - the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain. "

"Except that Darwinist believe the entire process rendered us at the top of the pyramid--we are evolutionary perfection."

Perhaps you could cite the Darwinist source that makes that assertion. Despite some effort, I have been unable to find it.

Thanks for your help.

Jeff:

Why does homo sapiens sapiens exist and not homo erectus?

Considering your hostility towards homosexuality, you sure are unnaturally fond of strawmen.

You asserted Darwinists put humans, evolutionary perfect, at the top of the pyramid.

I was wondering if you could provide the citation for that assertion, or if you are just making it up.

Jeff:

Why does homo sapiens sapiens exist and not homo erectus?

oj:

I just knew you were a closet transhumanist !!

Michael:

Why does homo sapiens sapiens exist and not homo transhumanis?

OJ:

Thanks for confirming the obvious: you are making it up

Jeff:

"Why does homo sapiens sapiens exist and not homo erectus?"

You answer in any way you care to and your answer will demonstrate the point. So I don't blame you for not answering.

Homo erectus does not exist because its fertility rate exceeded its mortality rate sufficiently long for the population to reach zero. That, BTW, is also true for virtually every species that has existed.

That has not yet been the case for homo sapiens.

Now, pray tell, where does the top of the pyramid and evolutionary perfection come in?

See if you can avoid unnatural acts with strawmen in your response.

So we're better adapted than anything that came before us?

Upon what do you base that nonsensical notion?

We're here--no one else is. That's the point of Darwinism , to explain why we win. If it were an entropic argument, that species deteriorate from an apex no one would have the faith.

Well you certainly cleared that up. You based your nonsense on nonsense.

At least you are consistent.

Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science - the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.