Monday, November 01, 2010
Dead robots
According to various notices on the Internet, the robot vehicle known as Ken Pulliam self-terminated from a massive heart attack at the age of 50. Over at Common Sense Atheism and Debunking Christianity, other survival machines are currently performing their blindly-programmed grieving rituals.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Just the level of class I expected from you -- none.
ReplyDeleteI merely described the death of an atheist in atheistic terms. The terminology is verbatim Dawkins. So why are you offended?
ReplyDeleteToo bad he died an apostate. It would have been better to die as a follower of Jesus.
ReplyDeleteFor those who are interested, here's the post at Debunking Christianity: HERE.
"Over at Common Sense Atheism and Debunking Christianity, other survival machines are currently performing their blindly-programmed grieving rituals."
ReplyDeleteIn Darwinian evolution, are "blindly programmed grieving rituals" a mechanism that helps the survival of species?
Is that Dawkins and other Darwinian atheists are referring to?
Is that what Dawkins and other Darwinian atheists are referring to?
ReplyDeleteEvolutionary psychology posits an explanation for everything based on the alleged survival value of this or that adaptation. But since it's all speculative, divergent explanations are often given for the same phenomena.
ReplyDeleteVery sad for his family. And absolutely terrifying for Dr. Pulliam right now.
ReplyDeleteIt's offensive, Steve, because you meant it to be.
ReplyDeleteKen had a wife and children who loved him. Unlike both Dawkins and you, he was a gracious man toward those who disagreed with him.
In Steve's defence, if the primary consideration here was Ken's wife and kids, how is Steve at fault by pointing out a view of Ken's death consistent with Ken's own view?
ReplyDeleteNo Christian would refute that Ken's death is a tragedy if indeed his eternity will be spent apart from his creator. But, as Steve points out, it is inconsistent and hypocritical to see tragedy in it from an atheistic view.
Likewise, no atheist can provide Ken's wife and kids true comfort given that their response to loss is merely biological in nature.
Only a Christian can truly appreciate the tragedy in Ken's death.
It is ironic that non-believers wish Steve had highlighted the tragedy of Ken's death in more Christian terms, rather than on their own terms.
HACKSAW DUCK SAID:
ReplyDelete"Unlike both Dawkins and you, he was a gracious man toward those who disagreed with him."
i) My post wasn't worded in terms of how Dawkins responds to who disagree with him. My post was simply worded in terms of how Dawkins defines a human being, from the standpoint of naturalistic evolution. And that's a standpoint which Pulliam shared.
ii) But since you bring it up, given the fact that Pulliam also believed in evolutionary ethics, perhaps you can explain to me the moral significance of an (allegedly) offensive remark within the framework of evolutionary ethics.
HACKSAW DUCK SAID:
ReplyDelete"Ken had a wife and children who loved him."
If that's your real concern, then what about the feelings of Christians who lose a friend or family member to militant infidels who poach on vulnerable Christians?
other survival machines are currently performing their blindly-programmed grieving rituals.
ReplyDeleteStupid memes.
Why would you use the death of any human being as an opportunity to further your own agenda?
ReplyDeleteI know it's wrong, and you know it's wrong. The difference is that I care about those that are left behind, and all you care about is your agenda.
I'm sure everyone here is proud of you and giving you virtual high fives.
There are many others, who have already turned from their faith, whom you have alientated further.
Good job Christian.
Phillistine, that's exactly what he's doing: seizing on someone's death as an opportunity to advance the agenda. And when I call him on it, all he does is raise philosophical quibbles about my objection. Truly a creep of gargantuan proportions, regardless of one's creed.
ReplyDeleteIronic that it's the atheist who are doing all the emoting. Aren't they supposed to be the High Priests Of All Knowledge and Rationality?
ReplyDelete*atheistS
ReplyDeleteI'm sure these atheists had the same hand wringing self-reflection the day Jerry Falwell died, too.
ReplyDeletePhilistine and Hacksaw Duck fail to see the duplicity in their emoting of a favored individual who dies. If death is the norm in their athiestic/evolutionist paradigm, then all they can possibly say is the subjective opinion that he lived a full life. Nothing else.
ReplyDeletePhilistine said:
ReplyDelete---
Why would you use the death of any human being as an opportunity to further your own agenda?
---
How is what Steve said any different from what Steve says any other day?
If Calvinism turns out to be true, then Ken is exactly where God wanted him to be. Ken never had any real choice in the matter. Ken's final destination was planned out long before he was ever born. It's all part of the script that was foreordained for Ken's life.
ReplyDeleteSeems like the charge of human beings as nothing but "robots" can apply equally as well to the Calvinistic worldview.
Walter said:
ReplyDeleteIf Calvinism turns out to be true, then Ken is exactly where God wanted him to be.
Interesting thought, Walter! I suppose you're trying to call to mind the following proverbial lesson: "The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble" (Prov 16:4, ESV). Or, to put it another way, perhaps this? Is that what you're trying to say, Walter? If so, thanks for the admonition.
PHILISTINE SAID:
ReplyDelete"I know it's wrong, and you know it's wrong."
Really? How is it wrong to describe the death of an atheist in atheistic terms?
PHILISTINE SAID:
ReplyDelete"Why would you use the death of any human being as an opportunity to further your own agenda?"
If you wish to put it that way, the Bible frequently uses the death of both the righteous and the wicked to advance a theological agenda.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteWhether one believes that we're blindly-programmed or divinely-designed, don't we all agree that people die, loved ones grieve, and we try to cope in different ways? Your post implies that true pain, suffering, happiness, sadness, hopes, and desires aren't experienced by atheists or are somehow at logical odds with a naturalistic worldview. You don't truly believe that, do you?
"Whether one believes that we're blindly-programmed or divinely-designed, don't we all agree that people die, loved ones grieve, and we try to cope in different ways? Your post implies that true pain, suffering, happiness, sadness, hopes, and desires aren't experienced by atheists or are somehow at logical odds with a naturalistic worldview. You don't truly believe that, do you?"
ReplyDeletePain would be part of their blindly-programmed robotic software.
Pain would be part of their blindly-programmed robotic software.
ReplyDeleteFine, but what is it about pain being blindly-programmed that makes it any less real? Again, I ask: how are pain, suffering, happiness, sadness, hopes, and desires contradictory to a naturalistic worldview? Do atheists not experience these feelings and emotions (mental states) and have the opportunity to act on and react to them just like theists do, regardless of the origins posited for said states?
I have yet to see what you find objectionable in my post. I depicted his demise in phraseology I lifted straight from Richard Dawkins. What is wrong with using atheistic terminology to describe the death of a militant atheist?
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that if a honest depiction of atheism is going to hurt somebody's feelings, then we should censor atheism? Is atheistic discourse unfit to print?
Walter said "If Calvinism turns out to be true, then Ken is exactly where God wanted him to be."
ReplyDeleteThis is only true if God wanted Ken to sin. You'd have to show all Calvinist believe this.
I suppose you're trying to call to mind the following proverbial lesson: "The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble" (Prov 16:4, ESV)
ReplyDeleteNo admonition from me. I think using Ken's death in this manner is in pretty poor taste.
It seems fairly ironic to me that a Calvinist would mock atheists for considering themselves to be programmed by evolution, when 'programmed robots' is exactly what we are if Calvinism is true. The only difference being what did the programming.
Walter, your argument above is still a non sequitur.
ReplyDeleteGod has indeed imbibed purpose in all things.
God punishing the wicked has purpose in showing God's righteousness, but it does not follow that God Himself is responsible for Ken's sin [James 1:13]. Sin is man's part [Rom 5:12].
If Ken spends eternity apart from God it was his choice to do so.
If Ken spends eternity apart from God it was his choice to do so.
ReplyDeleteAssuming Calvinism, if Ken did not want to spend eternity with God it was because Ken was 'programmed' with a nature that did not desire God. This programmed nature was given to Ken as a curse on all humanity because our first ancestor failed an obedience test. The only ones who get their programming 'fixed' are the ones predestined to be one of God's chosen pets. If Ken was not chosen, then I fail to see how he can be held culpable for not being able to go against his own programmed nature that was given to him by a sovereign god.
I suppose that I will never understand the doublethink of Calvinism.
Are you saying that if a honest depiction of atheism is going to hurt somebody's feelings, then we should censor atheism? Is atheistic discourse unfit to print?
ReplyDeleteNot at all. What I'm saying is that your depiction of atheism is dishonest inasmuch as it's incomplete and mischaracterizes Dawkins specifically and atheists generally. Yes, Dawkins asserts that we are all here because of blind chance, but does he conclude from this premise that life and death are meaningless to us? No, he doesn't, yet that's what your post implies. (Please do correct me if I'm misinterpreting the purpose of your post.)
While we might expect such a lousy production from someone whose theology hinges upon the fine art of prooftexting, one would still hope for common decency and personal restraint in this context, especially for the sake of Ken's loved ones (who may or may not be atheists).
ENCHANTEDNATURALIST.COM SAID:
ReplyDelete“Not at all. What I'm saying is that your depiction of atheism is dishonest inasmuch as it's incomplete and mischaracterizes Dawkins specifically and atheists generally.”
A more complete characterization would be just as bleak.
“Yes, Dawkins asserts that we are all here because of blind chance, but does he conclude from this premise that life and death are meaningless to us?”
It is very revealing, albeit predictable, that infidels like you are so rankled by a post that merely recycles atheistic jargon to define the demise of an outspoken atheist.
According to Dawkins, Ken Pulliam was a robotic vehicle. When he died, a survival machine ceased to function.
His mourners are also the byproduct of blind natural selection. As such, their grieving rituals are blindly-programmed by natural selection.
If you can extract a meaningful existence from that premise, give it your best shot.
“One would still hope for common decency and personal restraint in this context…”
That assumes a moral standard you need to justify. Pulliam pinned his hopes on evolutionary ethics. But as Michael Ruse has persuasively argued, that’s a recipe for moral nihilism. Furthermore, evolutionary ethics commits the naturalistic fallacy. Quite a number of secular thinkers candidly admit that atheism is at odds with moral realism.
“Especially for the sake of Ken's loved ones (who may or may not be atheists).”
If his loved ones are atheists, why would they be upset by an atheistic characterization of his demise?
If his loved ones are Christians, they’d be more upset by his scorched-earth attacks on the resurrection and the atonement of Christ.
When he was alive, did you chide Pulliam for his failure to observe common decency and self-restraint by savaging the faith of his Christian friends and relatives?
If you can extract a meaningful existence from that premise, give it your best shot.
ReplyDeleteA projection of your own feelings of personal existential insecurity...now we're getting somewhere!
“One would still hope for common decency and personal restraint in this context…”
That assumes a moral standard you need to justify.
So you don't deny that you're an a$%hole. Now we're REALLY getting somewhere!
ENCHANTEDNATURALIST.COM SAID:
ReplyDelete"Whether one believes that we're blindly-programmed or divinely-designed, don't we all agree that people die, loved ones grieve, and we try to cope in different ways? Your post implies that true pain, suffering, happiness, sadness, hopes, and desires aren't experienced by atheists or are somehow at logical odds with a naturalistic worldview. You don't truly believe that, do you?"
According to Paul and Patricia Churchland, they are, in fact, incompatible with a naturalistic worldview.
ENCHANTEDNATURALIST.COM,
ReplyDeleteI see it didn't take you long to run out of your pat answers. You can only copy so many one-liners from Hitchens and Dawkins onto your cue cards.
This is how debates with an atheist typically go. He may begin with a veneer of rationalist rhetoric, but when he can't back up his position with solid argumentation, all he can do is to fall back on emotive adjectives.
According to Paul and Patricia Churchland, they are, in fact, incompatible with a naturalistic worldview.
ReplyDeleteAn argument from authority emanating from a self-designated paragon of rationality and proponent of "solid argumentation?" Say it isn't so.
You can only copy so many one-liners from Hitchens and Dawkins onto your cue cards.
Please, do tell which one-liners I copied. I eagerly await your citations since you so ardently eschew a "veneer of rationalist rhetoric."
Walter said "Assuming Calvinism .." snip
ReplyDeleteWhat brand of Calvinism? Not all Calvinist's believe your straw man, nor can you show the Bible says it.
You are choosing that particular strain (of Calvinism) that most fits your view, and painting all Calvinists with the same brush; so you should really qualify your statement.
What the Bible does say is that sin cultivates enmity towards God. This means, the more you sin the more you rebel against God. The programming here is self induced.
What brand of Calvinism? Not all Calvinist's believe your straw man, nor can you show the Bible says it.
ReplyDeleteIt is hard to find two online Christians that share the same beliefs. No matter what I say, another pious believer will accuse me of attacking a straw man that does not reflect their own peculiar strain of religious belief.
Walter,
ReplyDeleteI feel your pain. It's impossible to address thousands of theologies all at once. Luke over at Common Sense Atheism wrote a post earlier this year about the "not-my-theology" rebuttal perpetually proferred by theists.
Waaahhhhh...
ReplyDeleteMommy, it's just so, so, so *hard* to learn!!!!!!! *Gasp, sob, wheeze*
Those nasty Christians want me to UNDERSTAND their position BEFORE I criticise it! What are they, NUTS?!?!?!??!?!?!1
Walter said "It is hard to find two online Christians that share the same beliefs."
ReplyDelete... which is really not much different than atheists.
Still, Steve occasionally points out the line that divides philosophy from theology, and it is generally a clear line.
If you're going to attack Christian beliefs you're best bet is to stick to those beliefs that are most reasonably justified by the Bible itself. This at least, is the standard for protestant belief, of whom, Calvinists are a subset.
As a regular reader of this blog, I credit you with an awareness of those theological beliefs where Christians themselves are at odds.
This means, you really should read your Bible, cover to cover so you know for yourself what 'orthodoxy' is.
(I won't deny the hope, that in doing so, you'll be saved)
Mercy; you just can't get atheists to follow out their own reasoning, even if you use both hands, can you?
ReplyDeleteThey come right up to the brink of facing the necessary unlivability of their premises... then do an about-face, eyes closed.
This is the craziest thread I have ever seen.
ReplyDeleteIt would be as if I died and a bunch of Christians flipped out that you told them my only hope was in the resurrection, and that even now I awaited the end of all things as we know them in the presence of Jesus Christ.
What Steve wrote is completely consistent with evolutionary thought concerning the death of humans. Our deaths really are no different ultimately to an appliance which stops functioning. To the atheists in this thread who find this offensive, it is offensive because it devalues human life, but this is exactly what your philosophical belief does to the human person. I don't think Steve really believes this man's death was of no consequence, but what he is trying to show you is the logical outcome of your belief in a God-less universe. Without God, we have no objective value, we are just machines doing what all other physical machines do in the universe functioning for a time and then wearing out.
ReplyDelete