|A Jun 2015 draft-cover (Ѻ) for Morality Squared: on the Goethean-Feuerbach Prophesy, Nietzschean Void, and Henderson-Rossini Hypothesis, an elaboration on Ludwig Feuerbach’s famous 1850 nitric acid [HNO3] quote + Goethe’s 1809 sulphuric acid [H2SO4] based “moral symbols” explaining P1:C4 and Ten Commandments overthrowing P2:C18 end chapter (see: Goethean revolution), admixtured with the Nietzschean void (1888), and Rossini hypothesis (1971). |
The aimed treatise, in more detail, is geared to be an "atheism explicit", in contrast to an atheism implicit treatise, discourse, stated frankly and openly by evidence-based "denial" (unbelief) and evidence-based "belief" (creed), directly stated, see: atheism types by denial and belief; in sum: a modern-day discourse and elaboration on the Goethean-based Feuerbach prophesy, namely that some day the scientific revolution, physical chemistry and chemical thermodynamics in particular (see: Goethean revolution), will dissolve the ancient mythology-based religions in nitric acid, the way Goethe (SN:1), in his Elective Affinities (1809), outlined how to dissolve sixth commandment of the † with sulfuric acid and gypsum , resulting to formulate a new more powerful resulting morality, i.e. morality²; touching on the Henderson-Rossini hypothesis (Ѻ), namely that intellectually we are nearing the point of being conceptually-able to dissolve sociology, economics, and politics in carbonic acid; such as was attempted in draft outline, in the early 20th century, by Vilfredo Pareto (SN:3), whose Mind and Society (1916), wherein some of these views are expounded, is a top 100 most influential book ever written (Ѻ)(Ѻ), and Henry Adams (SN:2), whose The Education of Henry Adams (1908), wherein some of these views are expounded, is a #1 ranked top 100 nonfiction book (Ѻ) of the 20th century. 
The following is the working main abstract of Morality Squared, in respect to the Goethean-themed Feuerbach prophesy:
“Someday the scientific revolution, chemistry in particular, will dissolve Christianity in vat of nitric acid.”— Ludwig Feuerbach (1850), The Natural Sciences and the Revolution; derived from Goethe's sixth commandment debunking Ottilie 
The following is the secondary abstract, in respect to the Nietzschean void (aka god void) left in the wake of Nietzsche in 1888:
“Nietzsche launched a new building project that represents an advance for atheism. Meslier denied all divinity, Holbach dismantled Christianity, Feuerbach deconstructed god. Then Nietzsche introduced transvaluation: atheism is not an end in itself. Do away with god, yes, but then what? Another morality, a new ethic, values never before thought of because unthinkable, this innovation is what makes it possible to arrive at atheism and to surpass it. A formidable task, and one still to be brought to fruition.”— Michel Onfray (2005), Atheist Manifesto (Ѻ)
The tertiary abstract is to progress inward on the Rossini hypothesis (1971) and the religion-breaking tension amid the post 9/11 new atheism fueled Rossini debate (2006-present).
To elaborate, aside from not only touching on the hows and whys of future Christianity morality dissolution, but also future Islamic and Hinduism based morality system dissolution, which constitutes the belief state of 75 percent of the world, the expanded abstract, keeping optimism balanced with reality, noting in particular that the Christian-Muslim-Hindu morality system dates back some 5,100-years, to the formation of the first dynasty Egypt, the expanded abstract will be but an attempt to elaborate, in more detail, beyond Feuerbach’s one sentence statement, into the form of a short booklet.
|A depiction showing how Hesiod’s 700BC story of Pandora, the first woman of Greek mythology, and her golden box, which she was warned by god (Zeus) not to open, became the basis for the 500BC Israelite story of Eve, the first woman of Hebrew mythology, and her apple, which she was forbidden by god (Yahweh) not to eat; transgressed acts said to be what let “evil” into the world.|
1. Pandora’s Eve
As more than half the modern world, 52 percent of the world is either Christian or Muslim, derives their “morality”, i.e. understanding of right and wrong, or good and evil, from the story of Adam and Eve, this would seemingly be a good starting point; the formulaic nutshell of which is as follows:
Eve = Khnum’s clay creation myth (1800BC) + Hesiod’s Pandora’s box (700BC) + Plato’s soul mate theory (380BC)
In short, Hesiod’s tale of Prometheus' "act" of stealing fire (heat) to give humans (life), according to which, as punishment for this act of theft, Zeus gave humans (evil), via the opening of Pandora’s box, and thereafter “morality” (Cicero, 55BC), i.e. Mor and Vita, as the term “moral” etymologically derives, and thereafter, as rewritten, via syncretism, into the story of Eve eating the apple, aka the forbidden fruit, as modern children are taught.
Alternatively, if one prefers deeper etymology, Gary Greenberg (2000), identifies not only Adam and Eve to Khnum, and his clay figurine potter’s wheel, but also the introduction of the moral principle, not to the Greeks, but to older Egyptian roots, via citation to Coffin Text 80 (2181–2055BC), contains details about life and morality according to the Heliopolis creation myth; specifically: 
“Atum’s two children Shu [life principle] and Tefnut [moral order principle]—whose offspring were Geb [Adam] (earth) and Nut [Eve] (heaven)—and in this text [Coffin Text 80] Shu is identified as the principle of life and Tefnut is identified as the principle of moral order, a concept that the Egyptians referred to as Ma’at (Ѻ) .”
The Greenberg hypothesis labeled Heliopolis “ennead” (3100BC), from the Greek ἐννεάς, meaning a collection of nine things, diagram is shown below:
Greenberg, moreover, traces the "god forbid Adam to eat the forbidden fruit", i.e. the going against god's will "act" that was said to have let evil (original sin) into the world, to Sumerian mythology, the myth of Enki and Ninhursag (Ѻ), in particular; which, supposedly, is opposite the myth of Adam and Eve in paradise. (Ѻ)
|The locations where god was dismissed from chemistry and physics in the 19th century; left: Josephine Bonaparte’s rose garden (1802), via the hand waving of Pierre Laplace, and Leipzig University’s chemistry department (1885), via Johannes Wislicenus’ orders.|
See main: Year god was disabused from scienceThe years in which "god", as a functional concept, was jettisoned from physics (i.e. celestial mechanics) and chemistry, organic and general, were the years 1802, 1823 and 1885, respectively, the former by French physicist Pierre Laplace, and latter two by German chemist Johannes Wislicenus, as follows:
“I had no need of that [god] hypothesis.”— Pierre Laplace (1802), response to Napoleon why the divine was not found in his new celestial mechanics book (see: Napoleon Laplace anecdote)
“That [god statement] must disappear!”— Johannes Wislicenus (1885), order to his guide, during his orientation tour of the University of Leipzig, as the new chemistry professor successor to Hermann Kolbe, in reference to Kolbe’s Biblical quotation "God has arranged all things by measure and number and weight" (Wisdom of Solomon 11:20) in large letters, above the periodic table chart of the chemical elements at the front of his lecture theater (Ѻ)
God, in sum, in the 19th century, was debarred (or disabused) from science, in the following fields: physics in 1802 (via Laplace | France), organic chemistry in 1828 (Wohler | Germany), physiology in 1842 (via the Reymond-Brucke oath | Germany), general chemistry in 1885 (via Wislicenus | Germany), and psychology in 1895 (via Freud | Vienna). God has not, however, been disabused from “biology”, nor can it ever, as status quo remains, barring a scientific revolution; an issue, to say the least, which is a bit more complex. In short, one cannot simply disconnect or dismiss, with a wave of the hand, like Laplace or Wislicenus did, in their respective fields, god from “biology”, because the prefix ‘bio-”, itself, is a religious term, i.e. a “god term”, to put it plainly.
Thus, to explain, via elaboration, e.g., while Helmholtz, Reymond, and Brucke, of the so-called Helmholtz school, the key figures behind the 1842 Reymond-Brucke oath, may make a vow or pact of allegiance, "signed in blood", as legend has it, to the side with the reductionism view that, unquestionably, only “physicochemical forces”, in opposition to any and all “life force” (or vitalism) theories, operate ‘in’ (or within) organisms; the three of them will still inconsistently “believe”, in logical contradiction to their own theory, that they are in fact “alive”, and likewise that they will “die” one day; the latter of which, i.e. life and death, being concepts not recognized by physics and chemistry; they are “anthropisms”, as Charles Sherrington (1938) put it; and these so-called foundationless anthropisms, invariably, come to us via the religio-mythology pipeline of cultural transmission; and hence, in turn, from god theory; and before that from the theory of “multiple gods”; and before that from a “plurality of spirits” theories of ancient times, etc.
|A depiction of the Critias hypothesis reductionism god disproof, namely the logical progression from polytheism, to monotheism—which in modern terms (Ѻ) equates to belief in personal god, god, spirit, or life force—to zerotheism, i.e. belief in fermions, bosons, and “zero” gods (no gods), as Paul Dirac (1927), below right (Ѻ), saw things.|
The Critias hypothesis god disproof, one of the top ten god disproofs, is the following logic:
Polytheism, i.e. belief in multiple gods, according to Greek philosopher Critias (c.410BC), was an invention of lawgivers of ancient times employed to justify social laws:“Critias seems to be from the ranks of the atheists when he says that the lawgivers of ancient times invented god as a kind of overseer of the right and wrong actions of men. Their purpose was to prevent anyone from wronging his neighbors secretly, as he would incur the risk of vengeance at the hands of the gods.”— Sextus Empiricus (c.200AD) (Ѻ)
Monotheism, i.e. belief in one god, was an invention of lawgivers of ancient times, Egyptian pharaoh Akhenaten (1320BC) in rough draft, arrived at to account for the growing discernment of the conflicting view that differing “regions”, i.e. towns, cities, or states, with their differing gods (lawgivers), seemingly had peculiarly similar “laws”, e.g. stealing was wrong, rocks fell at the same speed, the stars moved similarly, etc.; accordingly, the multiple lawgivers hypothesis seemed to be in error and therefore there must be “one” lawgiver.“As I try to discern the origin of that conviction, I seem to find it in a basic notion discovered 2,000 or 3,000 years ago, and enunciated first in the western world by the ancient Hebrews: namely that the universe is governed by a single god, and is not the product of the whims of many gods, each governing its own province according to his own laws. This monotheistic view seems to be the historical foundation for modern science.”— Melvin Calvin (1969), Chemical Evolution
“The thought that all the phenomena of motion should follow from one set of principles might seem grandiose and inordinate, but it occurred very naturally to the religious mathematicians of the 17th century. God had designed the universe, and it was to be expected that all phenomena of nature would follow one master plan. One mind designing a universe would almost surely have employed one set of basic principles to govern related phenomena.”
Atheism, i.e. belief in zero gods, was initiated, predominantly by Goethe (1796), when it was realized that if the laws governing the social realm were similar, if not the same, as the laws governing the chemical “realm”, the realm where there was NO god, but only strict determinism, then there must be, therefore, no god.
The theory of “multiple gods”, according to the Critias hypothesis, to elaborate, arose per the logic that each town, of ancient times, beyond 150 in size (see: Dunbar model morality, §6 below), needed “laws” to regulate unruly behavior, therefore there had to be conceptualized “lawgiver” (possibly akin to the way we think presently as Newton being the lawgiver of the laws of motion, so to say); subsequently, each town of ancient times invented their own special unique town or city god as the deemed lawgiver, with its own unique properties. As science (knowledge) progressed, however, thinkers began to find that certain laws, e.g. gravity, the movement of the stars, or the tides, etc., were the same in each town, therefore the “multiple lawgivers hypothesis” became suspect and problematic, i.e. there had to be ONE lawgiver [god] for all of the towns, because the measurement of “laws” in each town, e.g. rate of acceleration when a stone is dropped, were found to be uniform; after which "monotheism" was invented as the upgrade solution to multiple gods = multiple laws problem. The upgrade from monotheism to atheism, like the former historical transition, is presently underway, as the solution to the “multiple monotheistic gods = multiple monotheistic laws” problem; particularly when it comes to questions of morality, e.g. Quranic morality vs Biblical morality vs Hindu morality (although this, technically, is polytheistic; approximately), when the sciences, e.g. neuroscience (e.g. Greene), physical chemistry (e.g. Goethe), and chemical thermodynamics (e.g. Rossini), are beginning to show one set of moral laws in each land, the same way as the stone drops at the same rate in each land.
| Left: an artistic (Ѻ) imagined “dress form” coming alive at night, but without legs to move, because of which it feels alone, lonely, and perhaps abandoned and cold. Right: a picture (Ѻ) of people dancing on a love sculpture at Burning Man 2014 festival. Both aspects of the dual-sidedness of reductionism to godless physics and chemistry; which can, on first pass, be or "feel" both chilling and emotionless, as atheists Steven Weinberg (1992) and and Stephen Hawking (2010) admit, when applied to the humanities; or, given prolonged introspection, become very warming and passionate as Goethe (1809) and Carl Jung (1933) point out. The right image brings to mind atheist Paul Dirac's "why do people dance?" bemusement.|
Russian moral atheism philosopher Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s Notes from the Underground (1864) and The Brothers Karamazov (1880) were two of the first publications to grip into the intricacies of morality and meaning in godless world, which can be both “chilling” and “warming”. The following, from Notes From the Underground, is a representative quote:
“What man wants is simply INDEPENDENT choice, whatever that independence may cost and wherever it may lead.”— Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1864), Notes from the Underground; #3rd most-highlighted (Ѻ) Kindle quote
In this novel, his character the "underground man" imagines a scientist telling him:
“Nature doesn’t consult you; it doesn’t give a damn for you wishes or whether its laws please you or do not please you. You must accept it as it is.”
To which the underground man replies:
“Good god, what do I care about the laws of nature and arithmetic if for one reason or another, I don’t like these laws.”
On this comment, American avowed atheist, physicist, and strong force plus electromagnetic force unification reconciler Steven Weinberg, in his Dreams of a Final Theory (1992), comments the following: 
“At its nuttiest extreme are those with holistics in their heads, those whose reaction to reductionism takes the form of a belief in psychic energies, life forces that cannot be described in terms of the ordinary laws of inanimate nature.”
“The reductionist worldview is chilling and impersonal. It has to be accepted as it is, not because we like it, but because that is the way the world works.”
Weinberg, here, in his mention of "chilling", is not aware that physicochemical reductionism, if understood correctly, via human chemical thermodynamics, becomes also "warming", e.g. the chemical process colloquially known as "love at first sight", sexual heat, social warmth, economic temperature, human molecular "friction" (e.g. Henry Carey, 1857), etc., in that one is able to understand the mechanisms of "passion" in the same manner a physical chemist is able to understand the mechanisms of photosynthesis or ATP energy coupling.
“Physics may explain the mysteries of the universe but it is cold and unemotional, so I try not to let it affect my family life.”— Stephen Hawking (2010), ABC interview; response to query: “how does your knowledge impact other areas of your life, e.g. your appreciation of music, of art, your family?” (Ѻ)(Ѻ)
5. Active theologies | Remaining gods
While god may have been disabused from physics, chemistry, and astronomy, in the 19th century, as addressed above, there remain human-centric fields of inquiry wherein god has not, as of the early 21st century, been disabused.
“God is [an] forever-receding pocket[s] of scientific ignorance.”— Neil Tyson (2011), “The Moon, the Tides and why Neil DeGrasse Tyson is Colbert's God” (Ѻ) (Ѻ)
The following, to clarify, are the remaining “still active” thirteen gods [ignorance pockets] of English educator Richmal Mangnall’s 1798 listing of 151 Greco-Roman gods, goddesses, and related terms, keen school children were advised to learn, if seeking wisdom, in the late 18th century: 
|1.||Jupiter [Zeus] [Ra]||the supreme deity of the heathen world, wife of Jupiter, and queen of heaven;|
“Matter and energy moves itself. It has no exterior mover.”— Jean Meslier (c.1720) (Ѻ)“Before we understand science, it is natural believe that god created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation. What I meant [in A Brief History of Time (1988) (Ѻ)] by ‘we would know the mind of god’ is, we would know everything that god would know, if there were a god. Which there isn’t. I’m an atheist.”— Stephen Hawking (2014), El Mundo interview, Sep 23 (Ѻ)(Ѻ)(Ѻ)
|8.||Mars [#1]|| god of war.|
[“A particle of matter cannot tell us that it is unconscious of the laws of attraction and repulsion and that the law is not true; but man, who is the subject of history, says bluntly: I am free, and am therefore not subject to laws.”— Leo Tolstoy (1869), War and Peace]
|11.||Venus [Aphrodite] [#2]|| goddess of beauty and love.|
[Image: Beckhap's law proof]
|13.||Cupid [Eros] [#3]||son of Venus, and god of love.|
|29.||Fortuna [#4]||the goddess of happiness and misery, said to be blind [etymology of fortune].|
|34.||Janus [#5]||a Roman deity, who was said to be endowed with the knowledge of the past and the future. He was considered as being the guardian of the roads, the inventor of doors, of boats, and crowns. His temple, built by Numa, was open in time of war, and shut in time of peace.|
|38.||Mors [#6]||goddess of death [etymology of vis mortua (vs vis viva); moral | immoral; mortal | immortal; mortician, etc.].|
|46.||Psyche [#7]||the wife of Cupid, goddess of mind [etymology of psychology].|
|56.||Morpheus [#8]||god of dreams [etymology of the character “Morpheus” of The Matrix (1999), per the phrase “do you ever have that feeling that your dreaming but still awake?”].|
[Image: atheist rabbit hole].
|59.||The Parcae, or Fates [#9]||daughters of Necessitas. They were supposed to spin and cut the thread of human life and destiny. Their names were Clotho, Lachesis, and Atropos [etymology of the term fate].|
|79.||Atlas [#10]|| the son of Jupiter, aid to have supported the heavens on his shoulders; afterwards turned into: mountain [see: Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand].|
[Image: a depiction of Shu, of the Heliopolis creation myth, holding up the heavens or sky (Nut); the precursor to Atlas]
|128.||Pandora [#11]||a woman made by Vulcan, endowed with gifts by all the gods and goddesses. She had a box given her containing all kinds of evils, with Hope at the bottom.|
[Synopsis: Epimetheus: the titan of afterthought, the father of excuses. He was given the task of creating the creatures of the earth. At the same time his brother, Prometheus, was creating mankind and, seeing the formidable abilities Epimetheus had given his creations, stole fire from heaven to assist his. Zeus in anger at this crime ordered the gods to mold Pandora, the first woman, and sent her to Epimetheus as his bride armed with a great jar [Pandora's box]. Pandora, succumbing to curiosity, opened it releasing all of the harmful daimones the gods had trapped within (the children of Nyx and of Eris) to forever plague mankind. Only Hope (Elpis) remained behind to comfort them.] 
|132.||Prometheus [#12]|| a man who, assisted by Minerva, stole fire from heaven, with which he is said to have animated a figure formed of clay [see: Hippocrates (400BC) and animal heat]. Jupiter [Zeus], as a punishment for his audacity, condemned him to be chained to Mount Caucasus, with a vulture perpetually gnawing his liver.|
[Adjacent image (Ѻ) on legend telling how the gods chose two brothers, Prometheus and Epimethius, to create the living things that would inhabit a planet which was beautiful to look at but, as yet, quite empty of life.]
|144.||Sisyphus [#13]||a man doomed to roll a large stone up a mountain in hell, which continually rolled back; as a punishment for his perfidy and numerous robberies [see: Jean-Paul Sartre].|
In short, modern science has done away with 79 percent (i.e. 139 gods of 151 key gods, goddesses, and human related terms and concepts, of Egyptian-Mesopotamian turned Greco-Roman syncretized) of god-goddess pair explanations of natural phenomenon; the remaining 21 percent, as tabulated above, will be the outline of future god disabusement addressed herein.
Hence, following Goethe, we find Otto Weininger, in his Eros and Psyche (1903), grappling with two of the above, via physics and chemistry.
6. Turek vs Hitchens | Atheists DON'T know morality
The following is ripe get-our-feet-wet dialogue the way the modern problem currently sits, vented in the heat of debate:
“Now Christopher talked about atrocities, but again, on the atheistic world view—here’s the main point—how do you define what an atrocity is? Who defines it? Who has the authority to define what an atrocity is? The carbon atom? The benzene molecule? I’m not saying you have to believe in god to be moral. I’m not saying that only religious people are moral. I’m not saying atheists can’t be moral. I’m not saying atheists don’t know morality. I’m saying there’s no way to justify what is right and what is wrong unless there's some authority that provides it. What is the authority? In a materialistic world view there is no authority.
The carbon atom has no moral authority over you. And it seems that Christopher goes on and on about how he does not want to be under any some kind of divine totalitarianism. That is a moral rejection of god. Where does he come up with this immoral totalitarianism? His world view does not afford immorality because his world view does not afford morality. He has to borrow from the Christian world view in order to argue against it. In fact, he has to sit in god’s lap to slap his face. Where does he get morality from? Where does he get reason from? Where does he get mathematics from? Where does he get consciousness from? Where does the universe—he said there are explanations for where the universe came from, atheistic. I’d love to hear them. I haven’t heard one yet. How does something come from nothing with extreme fine tuning? What is the explanation for that?
He said there are arguments for the beginning of life that are naturalistic. Not according to the people who are studying the matter. How about Francis Crick? If I could find his quote here,... Francis Crick said, “Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I swear I will never write another one because there’s too much speculation running after too few facts.”
7. Science / Knowledge + Religion / Binding | Coexistence?
The following polling results, from Michael Ruse’s Atheism: What Everyone Needs to Know (2015), of opinions of Royal Society members, seems to indicate that while belief in god, personal god, supernatural beings, and subjective consciousness existence after death (dereaction) have been jettisoned form the scientific mind—a direction in which the public mind will invariably follow—religion, from the Latin ligare “to bind”, thereby defined as abelief system that “binds a culture”, is something not so easily jettisoned, if expunged at all:
In other words, the above polling data, of the leading scientists, of the Royal Society, would seem to indicated that future shift from a monotheistic religion to an zerotheistic religion may accrue; possibly akin to the way, in the years 300BC to 500AD the Greco-Roman polytheistic national religion shifted into monotheistic national religion?
“Religion—Latin for ‘that which binds’—is the eternal shapeshifter; for science—Latin for ‘that we know’—is forever increasing. The former must always, in a haphazard manner, tail [or chase] the latter, just as the shape of the river bed entails the melting mountain snow; just as the unknown precedes the known.”— Libb Thims (2015), mental note; arisen while reading Lee Strobel, Jun 21
In short, to elaborate, via we "know", per Dirac zerotheism ideology, as mentioned above, that the universe is godless and comprised of fermions and bosons, but the cybernetic feedback of this knowledge, which presently resides in marginal few discerning elite scientific minds and thinkers, into the re-configuration of the "belief" state (new religion) of the public populous, culture, and festivals, is ongoing, and may be a forever ongoing process.
|Two depictions of quantum electrodynamics visualized bonding reactions, top a carbon + carbon bonding reaction (conceptualized via the floating magnets experiment), bottom a human + human bonding reaction (male-female reaction), neither of which can be deemed “teleological” (or theological) in operation, but also neither labeled as operating via chance, creationism, or “directionless” physical law (i.e. blind randomness).|
8. Teleological atheism | Confusion
In the 2010s, a number of self-defined “atheists”, Terrence Deacon (2011) and Thomas Nagel (2012) in particular, in efforts to explain how mind emerged from matter, in a seeming non-theistic way, have latched onto teleology as the new patch solution.
“I am drawn to a fourth alternative, natural teleology, or teleological bias, as an account of the existence of the biological possibilities on which natural selection can operate. I believe that teleology is a naturalistic alternative that is distinct from all three of the other candidate explanations: chance, creationism, and directionless physical law. To avoid the mistake that White [Roger White] finds in the hypothesis of nonintentional bias, teleology would have to be restrictive in what it makes likely, but without depending on intentions or motives. This would probably have to involve some conception of an increase in value through the expanded possibilities provided by the higher forms of organization toward which nature tends: not just any outcome could qualify as a telos. That would make value an explanatory end, but not one that is realized through the purposes or intentions of an agent. Teleology means that in addition to physical law of the familiar kind, there are other laws of nature that are "biased toward the marvelous".”— Thomas Nagel (2012), Mind and Cosmos (Ѻ)
Teleology, however, is a "dead" option in physics, chemistry, biology (chnopsology), and sociology:
“Teleology is like a mistress to a biologist: he cannot live without her but he’s unwilling to be seen with her in public.”— John Haldane (c.1930s), supposedly, a requote of something said in the 1880s by Ernst Brucke
“External teleology is dead in biology.”— John Wilkins (1997), “Evolution and Philosophy: Is There Progress and Direction in Evolution?
“Fundamental teleology is a dead option in physics and chemistry.”— John Hawthorne and Daniel Nolan (2005), Bellingham Summer Philosophy Conference
“In sociology, the terms of the debate have since been fundamentally and irreversibly changed, whatever it should be replaced by, teleology is now dead.”— Walter Runciman (2005), “Introduction to British Sociology”
The general problem here is that there exists a confusion between those who intuit that the mind can "sense" direction and the incongruency of this sense with the so-deemed three main candidate explanations: chance, creationism, and directionless physical law, as Nagel summarizes things
There is, in short, a directly discernible non-teleological “direction” to evolutionary-like processes, such as depicted above adjacent (human and carbon), namely: everything on the surface of the earth, animate or inert, are but proton-electron configurations (George Lundberg, 1938), operated on into induced movement and form change, via photon input, cyclically from the sun, which thus works to move core atomic electrons up to valance shell positions, thus mediating new states of reactivity and stability seeking need; all of which is geometrically quantifiable, such as shown above, thermodynamically quantifiable, via Gibbs energy methods (e.g. Gibbs landscapes, free energies of formations, Gibbs interaction differentials, etc.), and kinetically quantifiable (e.g. kinetic controlled), some of which has been worked out non-teleologically by Lawrence Henderson, among at least one other (add name when recalled).
Teleology, in short, is an Greek-Egyptian cosmology based theory, promulgated by Aristotle, based on the Egyptian four element theory, arranged into layers of gravity or deemed density, with Geb (earth) as the foundation (densest element) and Ra (fire) as the lightest element:
Fire | Ra
Air | Shu
Water | Tefnut
Earth | Geb
Everything else, whether humans or water, moving into its teleological (final cause) location accordingly. Hence, an atheist who employs teleology is a covert theist.
|The four big M-denials of the religious apologeticist, namely they will deny the mythological basis to their religion, they will deny the metamorphological (evolution) basis to human origins, they will deny that there exists a physical chemical basis of true morality, and they will deny the premise of a more robust Gibbsian (as opposed to godly) explanation of meaning in any and all situations, scenarios, and states of existence.|
The debative theist (and in many cases the debative atheist, lower in denial level) will always and invariably retreat in domino-like fashion of decreasing silence on the so-called ‘four M’s of denial’.
Firstly, when confronted with the evidence that their respective religion—Christianity, Islam, or Hinduism—is based and Mythology, pure and applied, per religio-mythology reductionism to Anunian theology, 75 percent of the world's beliefs reduce to this, they will quickly deny [denial #1] this, e.g. deny that Noah’s ark derives from Nun, that Brahma (Abraham) and Saraswati (Sarah) derive from Ra-Sirius solar-astrological syncretism, or that Adam and Eve derives from the clay creation myth, etc., per reason of citation reliability, a wave of the hand, or what not.
“The ‘Jesus based Osiris-Horus’ assertion is just based on misinformation. It’s garbage that spread on the Internet that just isn’t true. And what’s really funny is that these people who say this kind of thing, never quote the primary sources. They tell you that this is in Osiris or Horus, but when you look at the primary sources, you find out there not at all parallel.”— William Craig (2012), a Veritas Forum (Ѻ) Q&A at UCF
Second, when the interlocutor decides this to be a cul-de-sac of discontinuous discourse, they will move on to the evolution question—aka Metamorphology, as Goethe so named it (before Darwin)—to which citation of fossil record, chimpanzee DNA commonality, origin from hydrogen atom, etc., evidence will quickly be denied [denial #2] per reasons of fossil gaps, unbridgeable gap objections, among others, related to close-mindedness; thus prompting the inquisitor to move on to atheism’s trump cards: morality and meaning.
“The turning of hydrogen into thinking and purposive beings is scientifically undemonstrated, and philosophically devoid of merit.”— Ravi Zacharias (1990), The Real Face of Atheism
Namely, thirdly, the interlocutor will delicately point out to the apologeticist that Morality, based on the assumption ‘free will’, a scientifically shown to be invalid concept (e.g. Libet experiment), is baseless; and moreover, that as Goethe established, as concurred by Schopenhauer, Feuerbach, Nietzsche, Weininger, and others, ‘true morality’ (see: best book) can only be based on the symbols (i.e. moral symbols) of physical chemistry. The apologeticist, however, unless steeped in physicochemical sociology (e.g. Mirza Beg), will quickly become confused at this point.
“The [physicochemical-based] [moral] principle illustrated in Elective Affinities is true and not immoral. But you must regard it from a broader point of view and understand that the conventional moral norms can turn into sheer immorality when applied to situations of this character.”— Goethe (1809), response to lady who reproached (Ѻ) him about the immorality of his novella, Dec
Lastly, the interlocutor will point out to the apologeticist that a physicochemical atheism (Ѻ) based perspective of the reality provides a more robust and accurate depiction and universe-connected conception of Meaning, e.g. "sense of purpose", than as compared to vacuous religious meaning; the classic example being the example of the ‘meaning’ of divorce (or any type of transition involving uncoupling), the latter becoming confused on the problem, proclaiming that marriages are "made in heaven", decreed by god as sacred, or something along these lines, the former, i.e. the physicochemical atheist simply pointing out that divorce (or parting ways in some akin scenario) simply ‘means’ that the relationship reaction has reached thermodynamic equilibrium. The apologeticist, naturally enough, will deny [denial #4] this, ask for peer reviewed citations of this, attempt to marginalize the assertion, etc., being that the logic will be labeled as absurd per point of view contrary to their religio-mythologic anthropomorphic belief system.
The explication of the latter two, i.e. morality and meaning, according to Ravi Zacharias (2013), the two biggest jumping stones to go from theism to atheism.
|A depiction of the assertion that Nietzsche + Darwin = Hitler; and that to embrace atheism is but a pathway to the darkside of human nature (aka the atheism atrocities fallacy).|
10. Atheism atrocities | Assertion
The so-called trump card of the theistic apologeticist debater is the atheism atrocities fallacy, the assertion that all of the atrocities committed in the 20th century, amounting to some 100-million deaths, were the result of a combination of Darwinian atheism, Marxian atheism, Nietzschean atheism, or some combination thereof. The connection is often dismissed by atheists with quickly made statement that Hitler was a Christian, per citation to various god quotes of his. There does, however, seem to be substantial indication that Hitler was a Darwinian-Nietzschean atheist in philosophy; as evidenced by the fact that he gave Stalin and Mussolini personal copies of Nietzsche, took photos next to busts of Nietzsche, spent a good amount of time immersing himself in the Nietzsche archives in Weimar, and that he filled his Mein Kempf with Darwinian-conceptualized ideas about survival of higher races over lower races. The following is an oft-cited, supposed, quote by Hitler:
“I freed Germany from the stupid and degrading fallacies of conscience and morality. We will train young people before whom the world will tremble. I want young people capable of violence—imperious, relentless and cruel.”— Adolf Hitler (c.1945), quote hung, supposedly, of the walls of concentration camps of Auschwitz
Here, it would seem to be the case that Hitler believed that in the absence of belief in the existence of god, morality did not exist, and or that humans could be freed from moral reasoning, or something along these lines.
This so-called danger "objection", i.e. assertion that "evils" will arise if human actions are reduced to thermodynamic calculus of Gibbs energy minimas and maximas, in fact, was one of the first points raised in the Rossini debate, in reference to the possibility the Rossini hypothesis, i.e. of using chemical thermodynamics to explain freedom and security in society; the following are two differing points of view, the first a Christian scientist objection, the second a cautious bivalent scientific statement:
“The danger of such anthropomorphisms is that we really come to believe that there is substance in them. In this particular case, there is the danger that true human freedom will be reduced to some sort of physical freedom on the same par with entropy. There is the danger that some will think that true human freedom can be measured in terms of some sort of calculus of simultaneous maximums and minimums. And worst of all, there is the danger that chemical thermodynamics will have ascribed to it a power that it simply does not have, namely, the power to “explain” the human condition. There may be a sense in which chemistry is the “central science”. This is certainly not it.”We also note that Nietzsche's last manuscript writings, prior to going insane, were aiming at reconciling evolution with thermodynamics in terms of a will to power theory. The long and short of the issue pointed out here is that as belief in god dwindles belief in god replacement will accrue in inverse proportion; but, as history has shown, is one riddled with disaster.— John Wojcik (2006), “A Response to Chemical Thermodynamics in the Real World”, Dec
“I found the discussion by Leonard, Rossini, and Wójcik of the validity of thermodynamic anthropomorphisms to be quite fascinating. Leonard presented an excerpt from the 1971 Priestley Medal Address given by F. D. Rossini, in which he likened entropy to personal freedom (cf. molecular motional freedom) and enthalpy to personal security (cf. bond formation and a more stable or “secure” system). Wójcik, in his response letter, warned against anthropomorphizing science: Models that work well in explaining experimental observations are not meant to shed light on the human condition. In fact, it can be dangerous to assume that they do. The rise of social darwinism in the late 19th century and eugenics in the early 20th century are just two examples of scientific theories that were mistakenly extended into misguided social policies. Although Wójcik’s point is well-taken, I do not agree that such “loose thinking” should be “purged” from science altogether.”— Todd Silverstein (2006), “State Functions vs State Governments”, Jun
|Polls showing that the United States is one of the top ranked most-ignorant countries, by populous, when it comes to the deeper questions of conflicts between evolution and faith.|
While the phenomena of the promotion of "ignorance" in the name of "faith", or protection of what is deemed "sacred" (or taboo) in the name "values", is a global phenomenon; in the the United States, the problem if paramount. The issue seems to have its roots, ironically, in the 1st Amendment, i.e. the separation of church and state amendment. To remedy this tenuous problem, the US Constitution provides that new "amendments" may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. (Ѻ)
“Truth should not be silenced in the name of the Bible.”— Libb Thims (2015), mental note; reflection on 28th Amendment, 2:58PM CST Jul 13
The amendment proposed herein, i.e. a 28th Amendment to the US Constitution, one suggested to be forwardly promoted by the people, for the betterment of the people of the United States, to their respective congressional leaders, is faith vs knowledge advancement clarifier to the 1st Amendment, namely that although the first amendment guarantees separation of church and state, the details of the separation should not be one employed to mute dialogue, in the educational process, when either science, historical accuracy, and or religio-mythology comparison comes into conflict with faith of students and or the faith of student’s families.
The first area where this proposed amendment will bring resolution, to a century-long ongoing issue, is with respect to evolution; 2005 global polls show that the US ranks second lowest in the world in respect to lack of belief in evolution (adjacent, left); which corroborates with the parallel finding that the US ranks fourth greatest in respect to adherence to metaphysical beliefs, i.e. in God, spirit, or life forces (adjacent, right). The status quo, presently, is that science teachers mute or divert the subject when it arises in class; as addressed in studies on evolution vs creationism in education. In Dover, Pennsylvania, before the Kitzmiller vs Dover (Ѻ) intelligent design lawsuit, Dover high school science teachers were pressurized, by a few high-minded religious parents and school board members, into marginalizing the teaching of evolution to a few hours of curriculum, NOT allowed to discuss human evolution at all, and to compare Darwinism to creationism as equal on par scientific theories; ; following great personal turmoil, at the expense of the science teachers and pro-knowledge advocating parents, after the teaching method was declared unconstitutional, in US District Court, being violation of the first amendment, science teachers now switched to teaching evolution first and foremost in their biology courses, which is how it should be. The question of how humans came to be, and the moral and meaning ramifications therefrom, which amount to the biggest questions on a young person’s mind, should not be confined to a 1-2 hour teaching slot of the first 18-years of a person’s existence; or in many causes not touched on at all.
The second area where the proposed amendment aims to remedy is in respect to religio-mythology education; the Kanawha County textbook controversy such seeming innocuous topics such as discussing the possibly mythological origins of the Bible and reading poems that had the word “god” (lower case g) and “Gods” (capitalized), resulted in the “most violent protest over public school textbooks” in US history; shown below being noted protest signs from the uprising: "God is NOT a Myth" (left), "Even Hillbillies have Constitutional Rights!" (center), "We Need Your Help to Boycott Our Schools to Get These Text Books Out!" (right):
The proposed amendment, suggested here, in short, is a faith vs ignorance amendment, i.e. the growth of cultural ignorance should not be festered in the name of faith; the questions should not be avoided per reasoning that it will disrupt the foundations of classical morality; the conflict produced by the implications of the findings of evolution theory should not be swept under the rug (as depicted below), the dirt is accumulating and in need of cleaning.
12. Chemistry professor paradox | Darwin vs Bergman
That many of the implications and presuppositions of evolution theory come into conflict with both theological beliefs and physical chemistry is what is called the chemistry professor paradox; the gist of which is depicted below:
|Two examples, namely: Francis MacNab (1818) and Carl Linnaeus (1735), of where one's morality system and conjoint oft-biased sense of anthropomorphism, may lead one into vacuous determinations of what is "alive" and what, conversely, constitutes "non-life"; or possibly, as Francis Crick (1966) suggested, amid his neo-vitalism debates with Michael Polanyi, Pierre Teilhard, and Hans Driesch, to the determination that we should "abandon the word alive".|
The carryover of Egyptian-Greek god theory rooted “life” language, from our ongoing poly-to-mono-to-zero god transition, is replete, conflicting, and confusing. Some of this “unseen” conflict rears its head, when we see religious vs science conflicted thinkers, such as Scottish moral philosopher Francis Macnab, and his religion reconciliation attempting treatise A Theory of the Moral and Physical System of the Universe (1818), proclaiming the seeming absurdity that “a growing plant is neither alive nor dead”, being that he, to suit his own religion-siding (soul belief) mentality, shifts the “life | nonlife” divide (Ѻ), on the great chain of being gradient scale, upwards into an area of apparent confusion, i.e. one differing from the culturally accepted (i.e. taught to us presently in school) “mineral life / plant life / animal life”, i.e. Linnaean classification scheme; though, to note, we no longer "technically" think of “minerals” as being alive today—although, to note, Linnaeus did: he asserted, e.g., that “stones grow” or in full:
“Stones grow; plants grow and live; animals grow, live, and feel.”
So, e.g., while someone, in late 20th century America—like Dean Kenyon, who was removed from teaching Biology 101, at San Francisco State University, for teaching or discussing “creation chemistry” (god-based) alongside of standard Darwinian “chance chemistry” (Epicurean-based), on the subject of evolution, and the question of the so-called “origin of life” —will readily be “dismissed” for using “god talk” when teaching college biology class; the issue of life itself being a god-based concept remains. Accordingly, one cannot disabuse god from biology until a conceptual revolution accrues; similar to the way we now know that although we now say, using everyday language, that the “sun rises”, when probed, a science literate person will admit that “technically”, i.e. correctly, we on the surface of the earth “turn [or rotate] toward” the sun, not the other way around. The same, however, cannot be said about biology, because the Copernican revolution, in biology, has not yet accrued the way Copernicus overthrew Kepler.
That this revolution has “actuated” (as found in the dozen or so scholars and minds in the defunct theory of life and life does not exist area of logic, e.g. Sherrington, Szent-Gyorgyi, Crick, Atlan, Thims, Rogers, Jabr, etc.) is comparable, possibly, to the parallel that the so-called “heliocentric correction” actuated with Aristarchus (c.270BC) but that there are still modern people, such as in Muslim countries (e.g. Abdul ibn Baz), that do not fully “believe” this assertion, being that it contracts “god theory”. It, therefore, will be some time to come before god is jettisoned firstly from bio-logy [powered chnopsology] and then secondly from all of the humanities.
● Morality Squared | Part two
● Morality Squared | End matter