Spoonseeking

This is part 5 of a series of commentaries on material presented by Andy McIntosh.  This material was presented at a church that I attend.  It has been presented other places as well. For reference, related arguments were presented by McIntosh in the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNIwh6-KEe0 Atheism's Claimed Contradiction McIntosh begins discussing this chart at 52:50.   He begins: “Atheism says that there is freedom to think what I want to think.” This is shown on the chart as "Freedom"  It describes something known as libertarian free will. Freedom to do as a person wants, without another person stopping them.  This sounds like a core part of many western human rights documents, but not sure I would want to draw a line between that and atheism.  Atheism is the lack of belief in god(s).  I do agree that most atheists would support libertarian free will.  This seems to fall short of showing atheism req...

This is part 4 of a series of commentaries on material presented by Andy McIntosh.  This material was presented at a church that I attend.  It has been presented other places as well. For reference, related arguments were presented by McIntosh in the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNIwh6-KEe0 Software At 47:10, McIntosh starts discussing information, and quickly transitions to "software". He asks the following questions: Is software real?  The answer has got to be: yes! Is software material? Ahh.  Software is real, yet it is not material.  I saw no presented evidence for any non-material software.  McIntosh throws in his answer of "software [...] is not material", but he doesn’t justify it.  Software is in DNA (from McIntosh's point of view), which is material.  Software is on hard drives, in memory in computers, on your memory cards, and in the neurons in my brain.  All of that is material...

This is part 3 of a series of commentaries on material presented by Andy McIntosh.  This material was presented at a church that I attend.  It has been presented other places as well. For reference, related arguments were presented by McIntosh in the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNIwh6-KEe0 Random Energy does not Build Machines Around 43:00 McIntosh goes into an argument about random energy and building machines. This argument seems to rest on the paper “Information and Entropy – Top-Down or Bottom-Up Development in Living Systems?” From the journal that published this paper: “ This paper presents a different paradigm than the traditional view. It is, in the view of the Journal, an exploratory paper that does not give a complete justification for the alternative view. The reader should not assume that the Journal or the reviewers agree with the conclusions of the paper. It is a valuable contribution that challenges the conventiona...

This is part 2 of a series of commentaries on material presented by Andy McIntosh.  This material is related to material that was presented at a church that I attend.  It has been presented other places as well. For reference, related arguments were presented by McIntosh in the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNIwh6-KEe0 Note that this exact slide was not presented at the local event.  Where it fits into McIntosh's argument against atheism can be seen in the video.  I presume it was omitted due to time.  If there is another reason and I am notified, I may withdraw this article. Note Andy McIntosh has notified me that the flagellum he presented is different than the flagellum discussed in the court case.  This is true, and it was not my intent to suggest otherwise. Bacterial Flagellum Around 41:00, the bacterial flagellum is discussed.  McIntosh goes on to discuss more complicated versions, eventually getting to the ...

This is part 1 of a series of commentaries on material presented by Andy McIntosh.  This material was presented at a church that I attend.  It has been presented other places as well. For reference, related arguments were presented by McIntosh in the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNIwh6-KEe0 Note Andy McIntosh has notified me that he disagrees with my analysis in this post. Dawkins Quote This quote appears in a discussion regarding feathers at around 39:30.  Complexity is being shown in the feather. A quote from Dawkins is shown and discussed McIntosh comments,  “ That showed that this atheist did not understand what faith was.  Faith is not: believing in something which isn’t there.  That’s what [Dawkins’] definition was.  Faith is: actually trusting in something that strongly indicates that it is there and that there is evidence for it. ” What is actually said by Dawkins in the interview? ...

This article is a few quick thoughts I have related to objective morality from a secular and naturalistic perspective. Secular When something is secular, it is set apart from the divine.  It is not against God.  The divine just is not considered. Buying groceries tends to be secular.  American government is secular by design. This can be confused with another term: Secular Humanism.  This is different than just "secular", and Secular Humanism has nothing to do with Objective Secular Morality. If you believe the divine, you can still participate in secular activities.  Secularism is an effective basis for a society made up of people that don't all agree on god. Objective Being objective means it is the same from all viewpoints.  Some also mean that it should be in some way absolute and binding.  I will address those aspects.  But my general use of "objective" will just mean that an objective fact is a fact that does not rely on...

This post provides some possible answers to questions raised in the last half of the article referenced in my previous blog post. Why is it that [the non-theist] assumes that there is this universal, immaterial, abstraction called  reason  which binds all men to itself? Reason is not universal.  Reason is not immaterial.  Reason is not abstract, but it does seem to be so.  Reason is a pattern of thought that can be instilled in the human brain and engaged in to arrive at useful conclusions.  The mind is what the brain does, and the brain is material.  As reason is just brain states, it is also material.  It does not equally bind all men.  When one's brain is instilled with reason well-employed, useful conclusions seem to be more possible than otherwise. How can [the non-theist] justify those reasons without first assuming the validity of the laws of logic? i Phones and toothpaste.  To refer back to the previous post on k...