0070 Our current Lebenswelt is filled with word games.
The same types of word games are recorded in the Bible.
The Bible offers a testimony to the formation, deformation and reformation of the word, “covenant”.
0071 Where, in modern inquiry into psyche and organization, do we see the word, “covenant”?
Is the term, “social contract”, the same?
Oh, the term, “social contract”, is not religious.
The term, “covenant”, sounds more religious.
What is a word game?
0072 A Course on How To Define the Word “Religion”, available at the smashwords website, concerns our current Lebenswelt.
The modern disciplines of psychology and sociology claim to be “not religious”.
Indeed, they purport to scientifically investigate religion, even though they are religions.
Say what?
It all depends on how one defines the word, “religion”.
0073 A Course on How To Define the Word “Religion” offers category-based tools for appreciating the nature of our current Lebenswelt. The term, “religion”, is grounded in the potential of meaning, presence and message. Meaning involves social construction. Presence requires a three-tiered model of our differentiated world. Message entails an actuality filled with unresolvable contradictions.
This course fleshes out a scientific anthropology that moves with theological anthropology, without violating what is in the Positivist’s judgment.
0074 Jeff Hardin calls for theological interpretation of the Bible and scientific inquiry into human evolution to move in tandem.
In doing so, he unknowingly struggles with the Positivist judgment and offers us a post-Positivist alternative.
Here is a picture.
0075 If Hardin’s appeal prevails, then the metaphysics of the Bible offers a noumenon that supports phenomena studied in the human sciences.
Clearly, phenomena alone are insufficient to reveal our particular noumenon. How can changes in settlement patterns, innovation, and all the other little clues to the potentiation of unconstrained social complexity, produce a revelation that humanity is a recent creation by the divine?
Once the thing itself is intimated by the written origin stories of the ancient Near East, particularly the Biblical stories in Genesis,the human imagination may find a path to the hypothesis of the first singularity.
The noumenon, the thing itself, is necessary in order for there to be phenomena, observable and measurable facets. Yet, the noumenon cannot be objectified by its phenomena.
For centuries, empirical scientists ignore the noumenon and treat it as an impediment to their struggle for scientific results. That attitude continues to pervade the modern disciplines of anthropology, psychology and sociology. But, it cannot hold.
0076 Why?
Humans innately recognize noumena as sources of signification.
Our lineage adapts into the niche of triadic relations, which includes signs, mediations, judgments and category-based nested forms.
0077 Then, our Lebenswelt changes. We forget who we were. We fashion fairy tales of who we are. These fairy tales include public mythologies of the ancient Near East, written in cuneiform on clay tablets that are preserved in burnt ruins of long forgotten capitals. These public mythologies agree with the stories of Adam and Eve in the Bible. Humans are recently manufactured by the spiritual realm.
Here is a noumenon that cannot be objectified by its phenomena.
Yet, phenomena exist only because of their noumenon.
The noumenon and its phenomena both point to a recent prehistoric change from the Lebenswelt that we evolved in to our current Lebenswelt.
0078 The rule of the positivist intellect cannot contain the human sciences.
Theology and the human sciences must move in tandem.
0079 Jeff Harden follows his appeal with summaries of faithful Christian approaches to human origins. These approaches include models of existential recapitulation, of protohistory, of representative ancient ancestors, of recently, elected representatives and of genealogies, as opposed to genetics.
None of these are adequate.
0080 Why?
They do not fit the fairy tales about Adam and Eve.
0076 In this look at Hardin’s article, another option appears. It appears as a mirror image of his opening question. It asks, “Why doesn’t evolutionary science recognize a twist in human evolution?”
The answer wonders, “Why is our current Lebenswelt not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in?“
The hypothesis of the first singularity is a scientific mechanism that works as an adjunct to theological formulations.
Indeed, we come to a new age of understanding, which the late John Deely, calls “The Age of Triadic Relations”.
0077 Here is a picture of three masterworks and their corresponding periods in human evolution.
0078 My thanks to Jeff Hardin, Chair, Biologos Board of Directors, for his mind-opening essay.
0001 In the December 2018 issue of Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, Amos Yong reviews the compilation, Evolution and the Fall, edited by William T. Cavanaugh and James K. A. Smith (2017, Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI, ISBN: 9780802873798).
0002 The book is the product of a three year initiative asking the following if-then question:
(A) If humanity emerges from nonhuman primates, as suggested by genetic, natural historical and archaeological evidence…
(B) …then what are the implications for Christian theology’s traditional account of origins, especially the origin of humanity (B1) and of sin (B2)?
0003 To this question, I attend.
0004 First, the masterwork, The Human Niche, proposes that the ultimate human niche is the potential of triadic relations (B1). Triadic relations are independent of genes and the environment of evolutionary adaptation. Even though these play roles in the actualization of triadic relations, they do not alter the nature of the relations (A).
Triadic relations explain why archaeological evidence exists in the first place (B1, A). Physical evidences are signs of human evolution, to the beholders, that is, ourselves. Obviously, we are adapted to look for and to participate in sign-processes. Signs are one type of triadic relation.
0005 Second, the masterwork, An Archaeology of the Fall, dramatizes the coming to awareness of a recent twist in human evolution (B1 and B2). Our current Lebenswelt is not the Lebenswelt that we evolved in. I call the transition: the first singularity. The first singularity begins around 7821 years ago. It leaves a fairy tale trace.
0006 The hypothesis of the first singularity (B1 and B2) raises novel questions concerning our current living world (B2). What is this the nature of our current Lebenswelt (B2)?
0007 Ours is a world where we project meanings, presences and messages into our spoken words, then construct artifacts to validate them (B2). The artifact validates our projection, even in the face of unintended consequences. One result is that spoken words, which are at first not deceptive, become deceptive, then wreak havoc until they are reformed.
Does that sound vaguely Biblical?
0008 An example is offered in the masterwork, How to Define the Word “Religion”.
0009 During and after the Reformation, the word, “religion”, labels Christian factions, vying for sovereign power in order to implement their organizational objectives. The factions stand as artifacts that validate the term. The terminology has consequences. Enlightenment constitutions, especially the American, explicitly forbid the federal government from establishing a religion.
0010 The problem?
During the Enlightenment of the 18th century, and during the subsequent two centuries, new social noumena appear, claiming to be “not religious”. The word, “secular”, is coined in the mid-1800s as a label.
What does it mean to identify oneself or one’s institution as “not religious”?
Well, it must mean that the entity does not belong to a Christian faction.
0011 The problem?
These “not religious” individuals (thinkers, leaders and supporters), societies (institutions) and movements (widespread affiliations) behave precisely in the same way that Christian factions do after the Reformation. They engage in social construction (meaning). They seek sovereign power in order to implement their organizational objectives (presence). Their righteousness contains inherent contradictions that cannot be resolved (message).
Indeed, modern “secular” individuals, institutions and movements meet the criteria that defines the term, “religion”, according to the above masterwork.
0012 The problem?
The US federal government has established a religion, contrary to the first amendment of its constitution.
It so happens, that the religion is not a “religion” (a Christian faction).
0013 What does the strange, historic reversal of the term, “religion” imply?
0014 The term is formed, deformed, and now, reformed.
0015 At first, the term is validated by the presence of Christian factions, vying for sovereign power.
Then, the term is exploited by “not religious” individuals, institutions and mass movements. By identifying as “not religious”, theoreticians, organizations and broadcasters find that they can attain sovereign power in order to implement their own organizational objectives. After all, they technically fulfill the Enlightenment mandate that sovereign states should not be in the business of establishing “religions” (Christian factions).
As a bonus, their competitors, Christian factions, cannot compete.
0016 Exploitation deforms the word “religion”, because “not religious” individuals, institutions and movements operate in precisely the same way as Christian factions during and after the Reformation, only with better technology.
0017 The masterwork, How To Define the Word “Religion”, serves as a corrective to this deformation. The current use of the word, “not religious”, is radically deceptive (B2), accounting for the application of the word, “secretive”, as an adjective, to secular individuals, societies and even, mass movements.
Do they know what they are doing?
Most “not religious” participants in mass movements think that their opponents are “religious”. They are. Yet, these same participants cannot recognize that their own stance is deeply religious, as defined by the masterwork. The “not religious” are religious, too. They revel in their own righteousness.
Hence, blatant hypocrisy defines our current times.
0018 In the ancient world, this type of impasse seizes a city or a region and brings it into memetic crisis (see Rene Girard in this regard). The Bible describes the historical arc of Israel in roughly these terms. The question revolves around the nature of God’s covenant with Israel. God’s covenant is formed, deformed then reformed.
Plus, the path is not smooth. God is at work throughout the Bible. So are we.
0019 For two thousand years, Christians contemplate how Adam’s rebellion influences us (B2). The doctrine of Original Sin characterizes a foundational feature of our current Lebenswelt. We are fallen, then we figure out a truth, then we exploit that truth with a deceptive turn, and we fall again. Sometimes, with God’s assistance, we figure out our mistake and reform.
Concupiscence is more than our desire to bathe our own corporeal dispositions with the waters of righteousness. It is also our desire to inflame our spiritual dispositions with the fire of righteousness. The Reformation term, “total depravity”, captures the way that we claim to define what righteousness is, rather than God.
0020 Isn’t that what Eve does, just before she plucks the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?
0021 The Genesis stories of Adam and Eve point to a real recent, prehistoric transition.
The first singularity (B1) initiates cycles of formation, deformation and reformation (or annihilation) (B2).
0022 The contributors to the book, Evolution and the Fall, edited by William T. Cavanaugh and James K. A. Smith (2017, Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI, ISBN: 9780802873798), are not aware of the masterworks, The Human Niche, An Archaeology of the Fall and How To Define the Word “Religion”.
As such, they try to adapt traditional Christian theology to an insufficient scientific paradigm.
0023 As noted in Comments on Jacques Maritain’s Book (1935) Natural Philosophy, modern science does not permit metaphysics. Consequently, human evolution must be accounted for by material and instrumental causations, whether in natural history (adaptation) or genetics (phenotype). These are not sufficient, because the human niche is the potential of triadic relations. Triadic relations are real, yet immaterial. They entangle the material, but cannot be explained by it.
0024 Also, the modern paradigm for human evolution does not envision the fact that our current Lebenswelt is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in. The transition from hand-speech talk to speech-alone talk leaves only one type of archaeological trace, the appearance of trends towards unconstrained social complexity. Why? A change of the semiotic qualities of talk is not a material cause, it is an immaterial cause. Speech-alone talk potentiates unconstrained social complexity.
0025 Finally, some scholars, such as Rene Girard, capture essential features of our current Lebenswelt, and so are ignored by modern gatekeepers. The writers of the past few centuries are often not aware of the materialistic Zeitgeist in which they operate. They wear blinders. They do not see the object that brings all into relation. After all, there is no material or instrumental power greater than sovereign power. Is there?
0026 The three masterworks mentioned above offer novel scientific paradigms that (1) are consistent with current empirical knowledge and (2) transcend the proscription of metaphysics, by considering semiotics to be real. Semiotics entangles the material, but the material cannot explain triadic relations.
0027 The three masterworks offer a new, truly postmodern answer to the questions: Where do we humans come from? What went wrong? What is the cure?
Good places to start include Comments on Daniel Houck’s Book (2020) Aquinas, Original Sin and The Challenge of Evolution, as well as Comments on Five Views in the Book (2020) Original Sin and the Fall.
0001 Sociology is often a curious field of inquiry. In the mirror of the world3, there is only one Be Little Men movement (blm). Blm is a slogan2. No substitutions to these words are allowed. The potential1 underlying the slogan2 is fixed on the only possibility among a sea of possible meanings, presences and messages. That potential is the possibility of marxist righteousness1.
Here is a picture of a triadic relation, as introduced in A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form.
Figure 1
0002 What is marxist righteousness1?
Marx is a “communist” who names his enemy, the “capitalist”.
The specter of “capitalism”?
Das Kapital?
The root word for “capital” is “head”.
Wrap your cap around that.
0003 Marxist righteousness1 relies on the emptiness of spoken words. A speech-alone word is merely a placeholder in a system of differences. Meaning, presence and message must be projected into each spoken word. The marxist reserves the right to project that meaning, presence and message.
Allow no substitutes.
Substitutions squander the purity of the projection.
0004 What does this mean to me3?
This is what the target of a marxistslogan never asks.
The slogan isolates the guilty.
Originally, the capitalist is the one upon which marxist righteousness descends. The target is guilty, with no option of managing the label, except through submission1. Indeed, the organizational objective2 is to manifest submission1.
Now, other labels serve as slogans2a.
This second nested form situates the first nested form, as described in A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction.
Figure 2
0005 There are two blms. On the content level, blm is a slogan2a emerging from (and situating) righteousness1a. On the situation level, blm manifests organizational objectives2b that actualize the potential of submission1b, thus increasing the wealth, power and overall prowess3b of those reflecting the mirror of the world3a.
According to rumors, advertisers in saavy suites say that executive suits of major corporations donate large sums1b to an organization2b whose namesake is the slogan2a. Other, less well-endowed targets are suited up as scapegoats, following the historic and literary patterns noted by Rene Girard. Marxist righteousness projects a lack, held within the accuser, upon a scapegoat, the target.
0006 Yes, by definition1a, certain types can never submit1b. These characters are magically gifted with the power to create the lack that they are accused of1a as well as the standing to fill that lack with their own… shall I say?.. capitals1b.
0007 Is marxism a modern version of an ancient religion?
Surely, early civilizations sacrifice humans to their gods.
Remember the old adage?
A capitalist will sell the communist the rope to hang himself.
The joke works as long as the target does not comprehend the intent of the customer.
Why would anyone hang the fellow who sold “him” some rope?
Marxist righteousness calls the fellow, a “capitalist”.
The seller’s hanging manifests the realness of the marxist’s organizational objectives1b.
In the same way, ritual sacrifice validates the realness of ancient deities.
0008 What else does this imply?
The target is not privy to what does this mean to me3b. The deadly earnestness of marxist submission1b cannot be appreciated from the outside. The above two-level interscope is sensible only from the inside. The insider holds the secret knowledge3a that secures the slogan’s single possible meaning, presence and message1a.
If a gnostic path blossoms into a social movement, such as the be little men movement, then today’s secular academic sociologists include the topic in their regional and global meetings, showcasing how they are in tune with the emerging secret knowledge. They can explain it. They can write books about it. They can explore its righteousness1a, explicate its slogans2a, develop pathways for submission1b and extol its authority2b. They can conduct surveys in order to show how a slogan has struck a cord in social consciousness3a. They can tell all how the insider feels3b.
0009 Modern sociology is such a curious field of inquiry. It poses as a mirror3a ofthe worldc. As such, it constructs its own sensible approach, in the same fashion as marxist religions.
0010 Five related works are available at www.smashwords.com.
A Primer on the Category Based Nested Form
A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction
How To Define the Word “Religion”
Comments on Eric Santner’s Book (2016) “The Weight of All Flesh”
Comments on Peter Burfeind’s Book (2014) Gnostic America
0001 In 2009, Robert Pennock wants to clear the fog of intellectual warfare, by publishing an article in Synthese (DOI 10.1007/s11229-009-9547-3). The full title is, “Can’t Philosophers Tell the Difference Between Science and Religion?: Demarcation Revisited”. Of course, a recitation of this title should be accompanied by a pouring of the Balvenie, matured in rum casks and aged 14 years. After all, that is nearly the length of time that the words in Pennock’s paper have matured, in the cask of the Synthese.
Pennock’s abstract puts the headline question into context. The 2005 decision, Kitzmiller versus Dover Area School Board, rules that Intelligent Design (ID) cannot be taught as a science. This suggests that it cannot be taught at all, because the flip side of science is religion. Public schools cannot teach religion. That would violate the separation of church and state.
0002 The ruling follows a prior legal defeat, the 1981, McLean versus Arkansas decision against teaching creationism as science. Afterwards, creationists contend that religion and science cannot be distinguished. They cite a philosopher who claims that there are not sufficient criteria for demarcation, especially when considering method.
In contrast, Pennock argues that the word, “sufficient”, should be replaced by the word, “ballpark”. Rules of thumb are capable of distinguishing between science and religion. One rule of thumb is methodical naturalism. Science relies on it. Religion does not.
Does Pennock influence the 2005 Kitzmiller vs Dover trial?
Of course, why would Pennock write about the incident years later?
The text itself, is not clear.
What is clear?
Judge John E. Jones III rules that ID pretends to be a science. ID is really an apparatus of a sectarian religion. Teaching ID in public schools would be the establishment of a religion, in violation of the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
Both sides of the case ask the judge to rule on this point.
0003 The ruling comes as a victory for Big Government (il)Liberals (BG(il)L), who portray the contest as follows.
The “villains” are the Board of Directors of the Public Schools of Dover, Pennsylvania. Creationists gain enough seats to vote to make the ID textbook, Of Pandas and People, available as biology curricula. In this book, natural selection becomes “Darwin’s theory”, which is not a fact, but a theory.
The “heroes” are several parents who sue the district. They all fall under the label, “Kitzmiller”.
Curiously, “kitze” is a neuter noun for a kid goat. “Miller” is a person who grinds grain in a mill. Perhaps, the concatenation carries a symbolic message.
The “villainous” school district is defended by the Thomas More Law Center, which does not realize that they are about to have their heads handed back to them. This becomes clear after they call key leaders of the ID movement to testify.
The lawyers at the Thomas More Center think that this trial will provide a platform for these players. But, as the media circus tent goes up, many ID players withdraw. What a disaster for the Dover Board lawyers!
0004 The BG(il)L corporate media portray the legal drama as a replay of the 1925 Scopes Trial.
To Pennock, the trial is more like the 1981 McLean vs Arkansas trial. The McClean decision concludes that so called “creation science” is not science, but religion. Here, “religion” means “a Christian faction”.
Such a ruling seems simple enough. But, the judge, William Overton, relies on a philosopher of science, Michael Ruse, who offers criteria to distinguish science from non-science.
0005 What are the criteria (A-E)?
Science (A) must be guided by natural law.
Science (B) explains by reference to natural law.
Science (C) is tested against the empirical world.
The conclusions of science (D) are tentative, and not necessarily the final word, because…
Science (E) is falsifiable.
0006 After the 1981 Overton decision, two philosophers, Larry Laudan and Philip Quinn, take issue with Ruse’s criteria. Do they write on behalf of the ID movement? Is this damage control? Pennock is drawn into the debate after he contributes expert testimony on the question whether ID is science or whether ID is religion.
Is this the trauma giving rise to Pennock’s article?
Hard to say.
0007 Pennock reflects upon the question posed in the title.
He wants to offer a more acceptable path for distinguishing science and religion.
0008 Can one differentiate science from non-science?
Why is this question relevant?
The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that the federal government shall not establish a religion.
Is that the same as establishing a non-science?
So, the first question twists. Is religion a non-science?
It turns away from an old relevance, where the word “religion” means “a Christian faction”.
It twists towards a new relevance, where “religion” is defined by an underlying meaning, presence and message. This is the topic of the masterwork, How To Define the Word, Religion.
0009 Why is this twist relevant?
What if the U.S. federal government establishes a religion?
What would be the nature of this religion?
Clearly, this religion is not a Christian faction.
Rather, it consists of diverse movements, a thousand points of light, that (F) claim to be “not religious” and (G) demand sovereign power in order to implement their organizational objectives. Since each objective arises from the potential of righteousness, these diverse religions constantly signal their virtues. They are keen on making sure that their organizational objectives get the government funds that they deserve. Righteousness wins power and money.
Does the legal debate that Pennock addresses concern a single point of light, among thousands?
No. Public education is… um… a big fish.
Yes, it’s a gigantic fish with sharp teeth.
0010 So, the question turns full circle.
Can science be taught as a religion?
The world is upside down. The ocean is where the sky should be. The sky is where the sea should be. The demarcation problem rests on the surface of this upside-down ocean. In this world, whales fly in the waters above.
The Story of Creation floats as a little boat that draws the leviathan of public education down from the heights, in a re-enactment of an orientation-challenged Moby Dick. The Captain Ahab of Creation Science wants to kill the leviathan, directly. In doing so, he would bring the celestial waters of the deep state into consciousness. The highly elevated deep state contains a thousand institutions, whose points of light orient Big Government (il)Liberals. Plus, this heavenly sea holds some really big fish.
Because these institutions3aC, both lights and fish, have organizational objectives2aC that emerge from (and situate) the potential of righteousness1aC, they are religions.
They appear to be stars dwelling high in a fish-filled celestial ocean of righteousness.
Ah, the relevant question becomes, “How does one distinguish religion from non-religion?”
0011 Here is how this fully twisted vision appears.
Figure 01
0012 Does this explain why the dismissal of the demarcation problem is premature?
If the world is upside down, then The Creation Science aims to lance a leviathan that dwells deep in the narratives of the heavenly waters of Big Government (il)Liberalism.
