Accounts from Here and There

On Art

When discussing his use of symbolism, or rather the lack thereof, Ernest Hemingway
once said of The Old Man and the Sea, “If I made them good and true enough they
would mean many things. The hardest thing is to make something really true and
sometimes truer than true.” David Barry david@vueweekly.com
On Art that is "Truer than True"
"It is a common experience to observe that a particular painting—for example, a
still life of apples—makes its subject “more real than it is in reality.” The
apples seem brighter and firmer, they seem to possess an almost self-assertive
character, a kind of heightened reality which neither their real-life models nor
any color photograph can match. Yet if one examines them closely, one sees that no
real-life apple ever looked like that." “ Ayn Rand;
Art and Cognition,” The Romantic Manifesto
On Evolution as Opposition to Faith

"Next year marks the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin's "On
The Origin Of Species." For some, this anniversary celebrates the high point of
human liberation from stultifying religion and superstition, our freedom from past
theological "delusions". For others, it is more complicated. The leading atheist
Richard Dawkins, speaking of this God delusion, as he calls it, offers a succinct
summary of Darwin's theory. But things aren't so simple. Scattered among the
world's top scientists are those who do believe in a conscious intention behind
nature's processes. I think of people such as Francis Collins, director of the
Human Genome Project, and Professor Bill Phillips, winner of the Nobel Prize for
Physics in 1997. The presence of such people poses awkward questions for the view
that evolutionary theory and a sophisticated scientific brain lead inexorably
towards atheism. There must be more to the so-called "science versus God" story
than this." [italics added] John Lennox http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/why-
not-every-scientist-worships-at-darwins-feet/2008/08/17/1218911450452.html
Perhaps the answer to the problem that "there must be more," is that science is
not necessarily the catylist that propells a person into atheism. There are
evolutionary theists out there, people who have a "sophisticated scientific
brain," yet who harbor supernatural conditions for whatever happened; and simply
believe that what did happen is that it was God, but not as the word of Man as
written in the Bible describes the word of God. Who knows what perverse reasons
men may have had for telling lies about the revelations they had from God. Or
perhaps it is simply that the revelations they had were not understood as God
wished them to be understood--in the minds of those who believe, that is. And the
evolutionary theists is a mind that has faith.
The other explanation is to remember that atheism existed long before the theory
of evolution, even though Lucretious is supposed to have been the first expositor
of that theory. Not every one knew of the things Lucretius said. His epic poem "On
the Nature of Things" was not re-discovered for centuries after atomism lost its
place as the "world view" to the world view of St. Augustine. Atheism can just as
easily--and more rationally be explained--as a rejection of faith and an embracing
of reason unmarred by any touch of supernaturalism.

Book offers a New Interpretation of Philosopher

W.V. Quine's Views of Naturalism.

Paul A. Gregory, associate professor of philosophy at Washington and Lee, has

written a book titled Quine's Naturalism: Language, Theory, and the Knowing
Subject (Continuum Studies in American Philosophy), which offers a new
interpretation of philosopher W.V. Quine's views of naturalism.According to
Gregory, "Quine was the most important naturalistic philosopher of the 20th
century and a major impetus for the recent resurgence of the view that empirical
science is our best avenue to knowledge. His views, however, have not been well
understood."To help in the understanding of Quine's views on language, knowledge
and reality, Gregory offers new views and interpretations on Quine's naturalism,
while at the same time defending it. Gregory says, "The naturalism/antinaturalism
debate can be advanced only by acknowledging and critiquing the substantial
theoretical commitments implicit in the traditional view."
http://www.rockbridgeweekly.com/rw_article.php?ndx=11687
"There is a new atheism afoot in the marketplace of ideas,

and it presents a far more potent challenge to the Christian worldview than the
atheism of former times, R. Albert Mohler argues in a new book.In “Atheism Remix:
A Christian Confronts the New Atheism” (Crossway), Mohler engages the central
arguments of four contemporary atheists, whom he calls “The Four Horseman of the
Atheist Apocalypse:” Oxford University scientist Richard Dawkins, Tufts University
philosopher Daniel Dennett, author Sam Harris and pundit Christopher
Hitchens.Mohler, who serves as president of The Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary, chose Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens because “they are four
figures who have especially come to embody the New Atheist movement.”
"The New Atheism promotes the development of a purely secular society, Mohler
argues, a secularism that views the death of all religions as the expected natural
progression of Darwinian naturalism. “I believe what we see in the rise of the New
Atheism is something of the endgame of secularism,” Mohler said.
http://www.towersonline.net/story.php?grp=news&id=543
Why the Theists Have Reason to Dislike Reductionist Metaphysics--
And Why Both are Wrong

"Personally, I find great comfort in believing that the murderer who escapes
justice in this life still faces it in the next. I have a reason to love my
neighbor beyond what I hope to get out of it. I have a purpose that transcends the
mere physical and chemical reactions that make up my bodily functions. So, yes,
not only do I believe there is a creator, I WANT there to be one. Without a
creator; without a metaphysical or transcendent reality we are nothing more than
those same physical and chemical reactions. Everything that is must be and
everything that happens must happen. Everything follows from cause to effect,
which in turn becomes the cause of the next effect. Our lives are no more than one
long chain of necessary and predictable chemical reaction; the output of each
reaction becoming the catalyst for the next. Every particle moves according to
known or knowable physical laws. If we could map the location, orientation,
direction and speed of every particle we could predict with 100 percent accuracy
everything that will ever happen as a natural consequence of everything that has
already happened. There is no room for chance. No randomness. No free will. No
“real” life at all." [italics added] Chris Bergman
http://www.dcourier.com/main.asp?SectionID=109&SubSectionID=701&ArticleID=58772
And Another Reason Theism is Wrong--
Morality Cannot Exist Without God?

"This is a "popular level" version (i.e., written for normal people, [ ] of the
sort of argument that C.S. Lewis urged in various books and essays: the phenomenon
of morality provides reason for believing in God.
"Darwin’s account of the origins of human morality is at once elegant, ingenious,
and, I shall argue, woefully inadequate. In particular, that account, on its
standard interpretation, does not explain morality, but, rather, explains it away.
We learn from Darwin not how there could be objective moral facts, but how we
could have come to believe—-perhaps erroneously—-that there are.
"Further, the naturalist, who does not believe that there is such a person as God,
is in principle committed to Darwinism, including a Darwinian account of the basic
contours of human moral psychology. I’ll use the term "evolutionary naturalism" to
refer to this combination of naturalism and Darwinism. And so the naturalist is
saddled with a view that explains morality away. Whatever reason we have for
believing in moral facts is also a reason for thinking naturalism is false."
TheCitizen.com http://www.thecitizen.com/~citizen0/node/30963
And Then We Have Morality Without God
"Why should an Atheist be moral, without a god to make him to do so? You may as
well ask why he should use his head for something besides a mobile hat rack.
Morality is a built-in condition of humanity; the moral tendency exists in just
about everyone, barring psychopaths.
"The only difference between people is how they codify and rationalise this
morality, and attempt to apply it in rational terms to the way they live. As well
as being emotionally-led creatures, we're also afflicted, as a species, with a
curiosity which would put cats to shame. This is what, in my opinion, ultimately
leads to us assigning causes to things, whether through frustration at not
knowing, as with Theism; or through reasoned and rational methods, as with
science. It is also the foundation of reasoning and rationality; it's a great deal
easier to find out how things work if you use a consistent system of thought,
whether intentionally or not."
[by] Mike, EvilTeuf http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/moralsource.htm
Capitalism, 100B.C.
"David Brooks, the moderately conservative (Canadian-born) columnist and essayist
of The New York Times, sounded absolutely smitten. Writing from China on the
opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics, he marvelled at the "mass conformity" of
the event. The intricate performances, he said, were an expression of collectivism
at its 21st century best, a precision-choreographed, high-tech vision "of a
harmonious society," staged with thousands of performers, "in the context of
China's miraculous growth."
"The ceremony drew from China's long history," he enthused, "but surely the most
striking features were the images of the Chinese performers moving as one -
drumming as one, dancing as one, sprinting in precise formations without ever
stumbling or colliding."
"In the end, the defining factor here isn't individualism versus collectivism. We
all work together and we all work alone. As an expression of voluntary choice,
authentic collectivism occurs anywhere it is permitted - in an Israeli kibbutz,
for example, or in an Amish community in Pennsylvania. The defining factor here is
coercion.
"The relevant parable here was nicely recounted last year by author Hunter Lewis
in his engaging little book, entitled Are the Rich Necessary? and subtitled Great
Economic Arguments and How They Reflect Our Personal Values. Ancient Chinese
annals, Mr. Lewis writes, record the controversial decision of a powerful emperor,
Wudi (156-87 BC) to take a direct hand in running China's economy - by
nationalizing key commodities (salt, iron and alcohol), by debasing the currency,
by widespread expropriation of land.
Although highly imprudent to do so, one of Wudi's advisers, the legendary
historian Sima Qian, published an assessment of the emperor's statist economic
policies.
"What need is there for government directives?" Sima Qian wrote. "Each man has
only to be left to utilize his own abilities and to exert his own strength to
obtain what he wishes. Thus, when a commodity is very cheap, it invites a rise in
price; when it is very expensive, it invites a reduction. When each person works
away at his own occupation and delights in his own business, then - like water
flowing downwards - goods will naturally flow forth ceaselessly day and night
without having been summoned, and the people will produce commodities without
having been asked. Does this not tally with reason? Is it not a natural result?"
Report on Business.com Neil Reynolds
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080829.RREYNOLDS29/TPStory/Busi
ness
Please send all comments to
mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the sm of the

Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism tm, the educational arm of the Assemblage.
This publication © 2008 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®

Posted by Curtis Edward Clark; Dean