What an Occasion!

I found this article - by an Evolution believing probable Atheist, quote and then link:

Let’s imagine a Creationist World (CW), where some rational agent called “God” made everything. In CW, the ultimate explanation for everything about the human race leads back to one first principle: God. In this world we could ask: “Why are there many races, cultures, and languages in this world?” The answer is: “Because God wanted there to be many different humans.” Likewise for other questions; “Why are there two sexes and not one or three?”, “Why are there three spatial dimensions?” In this fictional world, all questions would end up being answered ultimately by “God”, and this would include questions of physics and biology. The division of faith and reason would be different in the Fictional World, and science would perhaps be a sub-field of theology.

God vs. the Fact/Value Distinction
December 31, 2015 Adam Voight
https://adamvoight.wordpress.com/2015/12/31/a-critique-of-the-factvalue-distinction/

Well, Adam, who says that CW (Creationist World) is fiction?

But let’s say that in this world we have some ignorant Dogmatic Atheists. In spite of the existence of a well-founded theory that explains physics, biology and ethics in a set of parsimonious and coherent laws, there are a few ‘irreligious extremists’ who refuse to ‘believe in’ God. I put ‘believe in’ in quotes because CW atheists are different from atheists in our world. In CW, there are very few people who think that God does not exist (‘metaphysical atheists’) , since God has been proven to exist by secular CW cosmology and biology. In CW, atheists tend to believe that even though a God exists, this God has no right to boss us around with his so-called ‘Moral Law’. We shall call these atheists ‘axiological atheists’ (or ‘AA’); they might say that “Sure God made us, but who is He to force us to suffer and die for no good reason? I never voted him God! He might send me to Hell for saying this, but that would just be yet another wrong done to humanity by God. Just because God can enforce his so-called ‘laws’ does not make him right. After all, you can’t get an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’. That would be the naturalistic fallacy.”

Well, there seems to be an inverted parallel to Axiological Christians in "our real world" or sth ...

Does the AA have anything to say for himself? Not much, He can call the CWTs ‘reductionists’, since they try to ‘reduce’ value statements to factual statements. But the application of this label only seems compelling to people who have an ethics without any basis in fact. It’s hard to see how you can ‘explain’ anything at all without ‘reducing’ it to something else. Since Aristotle, ‘explanation’ has come to mean ‘to subsume a particular under a wider universal’, with said universal being agreed upon by all or most of those who would know. In rejecting what he calls ‘reductionism’, in this way, the AA has also rejected the basis of all explanation.

Two observations:

• Making the fact-value distinction such that they are totally independent of each other is obviously not correct Thomism, it is instead the pseudophilosophy of Kant. If even as much as just that.
• However, reductionism has a meaning. There is such a thing as a basic imperative, which then applies to fact. It is "do good, avoid evil". Obviously, what is good and what is evil has to be about facts. Life and mind are in the category good, insensitivity and death in the category evil. But one can indeed imagine men who knowing all the facts chose to ignore the imperative, who knowingly chose to do evil - because of lesser goods it does them, like excitement or feeling of power and so on.

This is of course why the tenet that we DO in actual fact live in a Creationist World and that it is the Evolutionist World which is fiction has to be defended. While some people will ignore the implications of evolution, while others will try to cumbrously mitigate antiethical consequences (or some of them, Feminism as Marxists see it is also antiethical, and Adam Voigt does not seem to be against that), this is bound to crumble in a society which blinded by state or corporation sponsored brainwashing about "facts" like "millions of years" or "we evolved from mindless things", some will in fact start to explore the ethical consequences of Evolution.

I think, unlike Adam Voight, they are ultimately un-Ethical.

Let's take the five ways and see how each way somehow (divorced from what follows in following parts of the Summa) could be replaced with an Atheist and Evolutionist equivalent.

• I God as first mover could be replaced by energy.
• II God as first cause could be replaced by matter/energy.
• III God as first necessary being could be replaced by "atomic" matter.

In some of the updated versions, since Einstein, probably matter would itself be a form of energy, and therefore all three first ways have "energy" instead of God. This seems to be fairly on the "facts-side" of any fact-value distinction, and therefore not have much ethical consequence, or perhaps have non-ethicality as consequence. There are two more.

• IV The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God. - Here the noblest thing would be, on Atheistic view, whatever is "most evolved" ... and next brings us to meaning of "evolved":
• V The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God. - This intelligence, atheism denies, and puts in its place "failure of all that can fail".

Let's list some type cases:

• 1) Universe would on their view exist because singularity failed to stay lumped together.
  
  
• 2) Solar system would on their view exist because gasses and dust got so heavy they failed to stay aloof. Remains going through inertia and gravity. No free activity nor lightness allowed.
  
  
• 3) Abiogenesis - this seems not to apply, but that is an exception. In fact, failure of all that could have failed would realistically have led to NON-development of life.
  
  
• 4) Biological evolution - failure of less adapted forms favours the more adapted (and somehow this replaces the need for intelligence in adaptions).
  
  
• 5) Agriculture - was invented because hunting failed.

This means, the ultimate hero in evolutionary cosmology is - death.

As I don't believe this is true, I don't believe the ethical consequences of such a view either. But I think the view exists, at least in hiding in a more explicit form than usually stated, closer to how I did it, and will be produced again and again as long as evolutionary cosmology keeps getting the promotion it gets, and sooner or later will come out pretty quickly and openly - and it will not be pretty. National socialism was one try at it, Communism an even more thorough one (unlike NS putting nations on the "has to die" list, as such, while NS preferred putting specific nations there), and it was not pretty. Transgenics is not pretty. Transhumanism is not pretty.

It is probable some of the very not at all pretty ethics in administrations (abortion, contraception, specific homo-rights as opposed to them sharing normal rights and duties, psychiatry, child welfare, school compulsion) partly is under cover planned by people overtly being that kind of death cult, and even more probable that Evolution and Kant each in their own way (for Kant, see Hannah Arendt's comments on Eichmann), contribute on a not quite conscious level to what is horrible in modern society. As a kind of sacrifice or hymn to "death" and "necessity".

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Seven sons of Saint Felicity
Martyrs in Rome*
10.VII.2018

* Romae passio sanctorum septem Martyrum fratrum, filiorum sanctae Felicitatis Martyris, id est Januarii, Felicis, Philippi, Silvani, Alexandri, Vitalis et Martialis, tempore Antonini Imperatoris, sub Praefecto Urbis Publio. Ex ipsis vero Januarius, post virgarum verbera et carceris macerationem, plumbatis occisus; Felix et Philippus fustibus mactati; Silvanus praecipitio interemptus; Alexander, Vitalis et Martialis capitali sententia puniti sunt.