The problem with this statement, from my perspective, is that of late, thinkers (like Godel, Roger Penrose, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and most pronouncedly Ray Kurzweil) have begun to realize that the mind of man clearly, and undeniably, is not bound by the limitations of time, space, and thus the laws of physics, as is the case with every single material, and every other living thing on the planet. The human mind transcends physics (and I can quote the atheist Ray Kurzweil saying precisely that).
I like that you include a range of thinkers in your rebuttals, but at the same time I'm not sure they'd quite agree with your context here, although I'm more familiar with some than others. Suffice to say I've spoken out against both 'scientism' in a colloquial sense, and reductionism here. There are things we don't know, and there are things we can't test...at least currently. But I don't see how that relates to the existence of God (in any anthropomorphic sense).
It's this undeniable ability of the human mind to transcend physics that is becoming so clear that even atheists and agnostics are becoming extremely trouble by it, and starting to try to steal theological concepts from Judeo/Christianity since they see now they're foundational and correct.
You'd have to be waaaaay more specific on the concepts you are talking about. Colour me skeptical.
The "parasite" versus "host" problem is extremely pronounced here in that a parasite that doesn't know it's a parasite appears to be endowed with a supernatural ability to be blind, truly blind, to realities that would force the parasite into acknowledgement that he, it, isn't part of the living body.
It's somewhat the paradox of solipsism though, isn't it?
There's an interesting scientific case in point. Modern Judaism leans toward the a-theistic rejection of a transcendental signifier for many pronounced theological reasons. So, we have a perfect, scientific, proof, that the parasitical mind, or theology, is utterly blind to what it can't, as a parasite, swallow.
Perfect scientific proof? You can't actually think that.
The book of Daniel gives a perfect timeline for when the Jewish messiah must arrive. This timeline isn't merely interpretive stuff. It's fairly explicit. Unfortunately for modern Judaism the timeline ends up, though it was given hundreds of years in advance, in the first thirty years of the common era.
Again...perfect?
If you mean he detailed it more specifically, then sure. It's kinda the first rule of prophets club that he broken (allow for interpretation), but given that he was projecting far enough into the future that he wouldn't need to worry about it, I guess he learnt a few things from Jeremiah...
Similarly, hundreds of years before our day, Isaac Newton, who claimed his science was his hobby, and theology his true forte, predicted, and this is in the history books, that based on his gematrial study of scripture, something phenomenal and important would happen to Israel in the year 1948. Imagine selecting one year, hundreds of years in the future.
I won't pretend to be an expert on Newton's prophecies, but he had multiple attempts at setting a timeline, and was generally less specific with dates than this makes it sound.
He also had issues with the Trinity, and I'm wondering where you stand on that.
What Newton's and Daniel's predictions show (and I won't dare get into Isaiah) is that the human mind exists in, or has access to, realms outside of the arrow of time, that (the arrow time) Einstein said was an illusion since space and time are in some sense the same thing.
Again, this approaches tautology. Only if one accepts their prophecy as being accurate and formed through what we'd think of as supernatural insight does it have the quality you're ascribing to it. Basically, if God exists, God is central to everything.
Which...sure...perhaps. But it assumes
much about the accuracy of their prophecies, and the means by which those prophetic insights were gained.
My claim is that we all have a biological brain that thinks like a highly developed animal (i.e., as though we're really smart monkeys), but that even smart monkeys are starting to realize that's not the whole story: we have access to a kind of thinking that's new in the universe:
It is the glory of the human cerebral cortex that it -----unique among all animals and unprecedented in all geological time ---has the power to defy the dictates of the selfish genes.
Richard Dawkins.
Human freedom is not an illusion; it is an objective phenomenon, distinct from all other biological conditions and found in only one species, us. The differences between autonomous human agents and the other assemblages of nature are visible not just from an anthropocentric perspective but also from the most objective standpoints (the plural is important) achievable. . . Human freedom is younger than the species. Its most important features are only several thousand years old--- an eyeblink in evolutionary history---but in that short time it has transformed the planet in ways that are as salient as such great biological transitions as the creation of an oxygen-rich atmosphere and the creation of multicellular life.
Freedom Evolves, Daniel Dennett, p. 305.
This new kind of thinking implies a binary between normal, rational, logical, thought, ala the brain, versus the new kind of thought that parasites the brain, or that the brain parasites. Some people experience this binary as part and parcel of their experienced reality, while others parasite the higher ability of the brain without acknowledging the blood they're sucking in order to do, think, as they do.
Homo Sapiens are unique in their level of self consciousness. There is good reason to believe they were not, at all points of history. And...again...you're quote-mining to support points the actual authors of those quotes don't support.
The 'new kind of thought' you are alluding to is entirely different to the self-actualised version of humanity Dennet is referring to.
Dennett would argue strongly against your presentation of humans as having consciousness, and other beings not. It's
precisely the type of binary thinking he has pushed back on, suggesting instead a gradient of consciousness, with humans being the most conscious.
He's also a materialist...indeed a harder materialist than many, including me. It's ironic you quote him to support your position, but I wonder if you generally find his work compelling or not.
My claim is that the political Left is far more likely to parasite the higher thinking and believe it is (higher human thought) natural, brain-based, thought, while the political Right, particularly MAGA, are not only made up of a majority of WASPs, and Catholics, all of whom believe in a transcendental signifier, but that this binary (between natural thought, and transcendent thought) is part of the Right's foundation, and is a parallel with the question whether Christ is the transcendental signifier of all human thought, or all human thought exists without a creative root, foundation, and is thus "natural" in a supernatural kind of way: supernatural-naturalism (humanist materialism in a nutshell).
Given that I see binary thinking as highly problematic, and I'm an atheist, I don't see these things as positive.
Before you jump to conclusions on that, I also don't fit what you're describing as 'the Left', am a student of history (with aspects of US history bring particularly interesting to me) and am generally somewhat patriotic. What you're talking about here, though, doesn't strike me as patriotic, but instead jingoistic.
Earlier I noted that modern Judaism, for various theological reasons, tends to view a divine transcendental signifier with suspicion, so that we tend to see, in the USA, Jews and Judaism (exempting the most orthodox Jews) siding more often with the Left and political liberalism.
Again...you're assuming Christ exists in exactly the fashion you believe, and then drawing conclusions. If Christ exists in that fashion, Jews are wrong. But that's a tautology.
It's obviously difficult to remain objective when we get down to the specifics of political beliefs we hold near and dear. Which is why most of the threads I start tend to be a/political soliloquies.
One of the advantages of being less emotional than many is that I can generally see my own biases a little more clearly. But it can be difficult, for sure. I quite consciously avoid identifying myself with a political party, and try to vote on the issues as I see them in each election anew. There are still clear trends in my voting, but I do swing vote at times.
As I argued earlier, there can be little serious doubt that MAGA people are very close to the feelings and beliefs of the founding fathers.
Assuming that is true, for many that's coincidental. But let's explore this momentarily. What impact do you believe the Enlightenment had on the Founding Father's and their establishment positions re : the US?
What rationale do 'the MAGA crowd' put on the deist leanings some within that group held?
What are their thoughts on Freemasonry?
What are their thoughts on having the constitution rewritten every 19 years?
What are their thoughts on slavery?
(I mean...I think I can answer the last one, but it's a clear example of core thoughts developing and changing over time, and that originalism has its flaws as a theory)
Were the settlers at Plymouth religious? (Some...others not so much)
Sooooooo many questions that I think (and I'm guessing, but whatevs...) I'd get pretty inaccurate or contradictory responses to from many of the MAGA crowd. Hence...jingoism, in my mind.
Therefore, my argument is that the political Right is the root and branch of the American Union, the USA, and the political Left is a propitious parasite that is necessary, and good, until it decides to attack the root and branch oblivious to the fact that it is the parasite and what it is attacking, if destroyed, will end badly for the political Left.
I'm roughly what you'd probably describe as centre-left, and observing from a distance. But there is a clear pattern of attack on democratic processes and institutions in the US. And that doesn't appear to be a left-wing phenomena.
Earlier in the thread I discussed the difference between evolutionary change with modification, versus a speciation-event. For most of our history, the political Left has sought serious evolutionary change based on some fairly serious modifications. They are now, in my opinion, seeking a speciation-event that allows a clean break from the original species made up of MAGA-like founders, and those who are deemed arrogant and stupid enough to support and defend the original species of American citizen. Truth-be-known, they're attempting a French-like Revolution on American soil.
John
It's somewhat ironic that you mention the French Revolution in this way, given US origins.
