Non Comedogenic Drugstore Makeup

I wish you ...

.

Haaa, these family meals ...

We got the big ass, in short a true carnage!

Traitement Of Viral Std

DÉBOULLONNAGE MYTH OF THE GREAT MODERN DARWINISM. Book Review of David Stove, Darwinian Fairytales, Selfish Genes, Errors of Heredity, and Other Fables of Evolution (Encounter Books, 1995)

To support his own story each adds a little legend.

Marcel Jouhandeau

Hard times for Darwinian

One day, a student called me in the middle class: "Sir, you say that to be believer, why do you teach the theory of Darwinian evolution? "Although a bit rough, the question deserves an answer:" There is no conflict between Darwinism and Christianity, Catholicism in particular; only the religious fundamentalists - the "creationist" - reject Darwinism; gold, I am not fundamentalist, so not a creationist. By "creationism" is meant the religious doctrine that admits that the creation story found in Genesis is literally true (eg, the world and all species were created by God in six days ago about ten thousand years.) "My answer is too dense sparked more questions for the student who, therefore, asked me emphatically:" Could you explain to me more, I do not understand! "What I did and urge , by way of summary, here is what was my answer.

"Among Catholics, long ago that the story of Genesis - the first book of the Bible - like any other biblical text moreover, is more read and understood literally. Unlike Protestants, who swears by the motto of Luther Sola Scriptura , Catholicism has never favored a literal reading of biblical texts. Thus, at least for a Catholic, "image" which is still beyond the letter of the biblical account of creation means that " The Creator is not only one who acts in an instant original, but the Being whose will all be creative brings into existence every moment, be leading history of the universe and men, not necessarily explicit and repeated interventions, but even and especially by the existence that gives and it supports his creative will, in the manner it determines . "( Montenat C., L. Plateaux, P. Roux, To read the creation in the evolution , Cerf, 1988, p. 13.) This smart playlist, that is to say "symbolic", the creation story had received the approval of Pope John Paul II, in 1981, said:

Holy Scripture wants simply declare that the world was created by God and to teach this truth it expresses itself with terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer [...] Any other teaching about the origin and constitution of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible: it does not teach how the world was made but how one goes to heaven. ( Quoted in Jacques Duquesne God, despite all , Stock / Plone, the paperback, 2005, note 4 p. 178-179.)

With this statement, the previous pope acknowledged that the Bible is not a scientific treatise, and thus its role is not to say the truth, but sense of truth. So much so that in 1996 the same pope declared before the Pontifical Academy of Sciences:

New knowledge leads to recognition in the theory of evolution more than a hypothesis. ... The convergence, neither sought nor induced, of results of work carried out independently each other, constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory [of evolution]. (Ibid., p.130)

I am not a creationist, I continued, though I am a believer. I retain serious doubts about the truth of Darwinism. In sum, I'd be on this point, as is often said in jest, "more Catholic than the Pope! These doubts about the truth of Darwinism - the truth that the Pope seems to admit his part - as it were crystallized from a reading of a remarkable essay from the pen of an Australian philosopher, named David Stove (1927-1994). The book entitled Darwinian Fairytales (Darwinian Fairytales). Published a year after the death of the author, the book has still not been translated into French. I vainly hoped he was in 2009, the year marking the 150th anniversary of the publication of the Origin of Species (1859), became an absolute classic of modern science - "to understand life," added a journalist. I have trouble understanding this gap. I hope we will have the courage to publish it soon in French, as also that other critical devastating Darwinism, Darwin Got Wrong What Jerry Fodor (assisted by M. Piattelli-Palmarini, 2010), American philosopher of renown.

Again, I want to say that one can be anti-Darwinian and be a believer or unbeliever, and non-creationist. David Stove and Jerry Fodor are not believers; a fortiori, they are not creationists. I am a believer but not a creationist. In sum, it would be a fallacy of false dilemma to say: " if you're not in favor of Darwin, you're always a believer and, worse, a creationist! . Things are sometimes more complex than we think ...

Let us therefore Stove's book and his criticism of Darwinism, you understand one reason why the pope who, like me, does not allow creationism , no reason to accept either Darwinism.

Stove's book contains eleven essays. I can not make the full report. Each chapter is, as I said before, a self-test itself, so it is not necessary to have read the first ten trials to understand the latter. The first, however, without a doubt the most powerful, is unavoidable. It is called "Darwinism's Dilemma , which could be translated literally as" The dilemma of Darwinism, "but the literal translation is wrong because it is not strictly speaking a" dilemma ", but a contradiction confronting Darwinism. A better translation might be "the contradiction of Darwinism", or to make wiser - more Kant - "the antithesis of Darwinism."

What is the famous contradiction that is seen confronting Darwinism? The very first paragraph sets the :

If Darwin's theory of Evolution Were True, there's Would Be In Every species has a constant and ruthless competition to survive: a competition in only a few "Wich In Any Generation Can Be Winners. Purpose It Is Perfectly Obvious That human life is not Like That, however it May Be with Other Species.

Here, schematically, what is the "contradiction of Darwinism." Two assumptions are necessary.

(1) The theory of Darwinian evolution (Darwinism, for short) states that within each species, whose species human, there is a fight between members perpetual and ruthless to survive, which often are those who in every generation, survivors.

(2) However, we note that (1) is not the case for the human species.

Conclusion: Darwinism is certainly false.

To remove the contradiction of Darwinism, Stove present three solutions that Darwinians have tried to make. He named three picturesque names, worthy of fairy tales, three solutions were proposed since the publication of The origin species up today to solve the contradiction of Darwinism: that of the caveman (the Cave Man way out) of Radical Man (the Hard Man) and finally, that of Man Mou (Soft Man). Each of these types of human responses that were characterized offered to resolve the contradiction. Stove shows that each of these solutions, instead of addressing the contradiction, however, the firmer. Consider in turn each of these solutions.

1 .- The Caveman

This solution consiste à admettre que le darwinisme avait cours à une époque reculée, à l’époque de l’Homme des Cavernes. Stove écrit:

In the olden days (this story goes), human populations always did press relentlessly on their supply of food, and thereby brought about constant competition for survival among the too-numerous competitors, and hence natural selection of those organisms which were best fitted to succeed in the struggle for life… But our species (the story goes) escaped long ago from brutal régime of natural selection. We developped a thousand forms of attachment, loyalty, cooperation, and unforced subordination, every one of them quite incompatible With A constant and merciless competition to survive. WE HAVE HAD now for a very long time, at least Locally, religions, moralities, laws or customs, respect for life and property ... (p. 4)

In short, the solution suggested by that of the Caveman is actually a myth that "liberal" famous "social contract" involving, before life in society, a "state of nature" where human life was "solitary, miserable, dangerous, animal and short" as already described Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan I, 13).

Unfortunately, the solution of the caveman is not a solution at all since on the contrary it makes more visible the contradiction of Darwinism. Indeed, Darwinism " Is A universal generalization about all terrestrial species " at any time, so that by saying that Darwinism is not true for today as regards the human species (or any other species), or from the so-called output of the Caveman's state of nature, then we must admit that the theory of evolution is not true, full stop. As rightly written Stove " If Darwin's theory of evolution IS true, no species Can Never Escape from the process of natural selection . "(P. 4)

Furthermore, it must be admitted that the existence of mankind in the famous "state of nature" in its Darwinian or Hobbesian, is highly exaggerated and unlikely. A forest of pines or cod population can not live without cooperation, but human beings can not survive without cooperation. The liberal myth of the Man Cave is our cherished myth. "By now It Is Enshrined in a thousand cartoons and comic strips [think of The famous TV series Pierreàfeu ], and It Is as immovable as Christmas. "(p. 5)

2 - Radical Man

Now for the second solution envisioned by Darwinians, that of Man Radical. While the Caveman dithers, Radical Man, as its name suggests, takes the bull by the horns. Stove wrote:

He says thats the Darwinian theory of evolution IS true Without exception, and It Is just to bad for "any appearance, That There Are May Be Gold in human life, That Which contradicts theory. Theys Must Be delusive appearance, that's all. Underneath the veneer of civilization, the Hard Man says, & Events "under the placid surface of everyday Domesticity, human life really us just have a constant and fierce struggle for survival" As Is "The Life of Every Other species. (p. 10)

will be recognized is the "social Darwinism" that Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895) and Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) are the figureheads. The first was nicknamed "Darwin's bulldog." Huxley did not lace: the struggle for survival is not a fad theory because it takes place here and now before our eyes, that is to say in Victorian England of the 1890s, where nearly 5% of the poorest English struggling for their survival food. Stove ironically just noting qu'Huxley this struggle extends to the human species as a whole. Seeking examples of Darwinism, Huxley points to other struggles between colonial empires engaged in by British, French and German. Let ...

In fact, this is not so much the real struggles that men carry every day that fuel faith in Darwinism that Huxley attempts to obscure and diminish these struggles are the health care, education and employment insurance provided by the welfare state. That is what is perfectly deplorable and reprehensible, according to Huxley, because it is "The Inevitable to Prevent Being led astray! "(p. 11). In short, the state interferes with the process of natural selection, which is perfectly immoral, always according Huxley. This Herbert Spencer comes in with his book, The Man Versus the State (1884), which became the bible of the great American capitalists, John D. Rockeffeler (1839-1937) and Andrew Carnegie (1835-1919) in mind. It was also at the same time that the first eugenic theories in the writings of Charles Darwin's cousin Francis Galton. Darwin did not milled out of this triumphant radicalism, particularly regarding eugenics, Stove citing incriminating parts of the Descent of Man. (p. 16-17)

What is particularly distressing in the solution advocated by the Radical Man is that it claims to be fighting against everything that opposes the inevitable! What futility! It is en effet parfaitement vain de s’opposer à ce qui, de toute façon, doit se produire. Stove écrit :

…I will say that the inevitable cannot – logically cannot – be led astray. If (for example) hospitals and unemployment relief really do interfere with or negate the processes of competition and natural selection, then those processes are not inevitable. If they are inevitable, then they really are inevitable, and there is not the smallest need for anyone to exert himself to prevent their being interfered with or negated. In particular there is no need for, and indeed no sense in, Hard Men writing books in order to warn us of biological With Those dangers of interfering processes. You cannot interferes With inevitable processes. (p. 12)

Stove reveals an absurdity at the heart of the young man Radical Popper himself had stated at the very heart of Marxist theory. Both consist in fact "in a prophecy history, combined with an implicit appeal to the moral law as follows: Press the inevitable " (Karl Popper , Unfinished Quest, Pocket, 1994, p. 44.)

If Huxley was Darwin's bulldog, Richard Dawkins is currently unquestionably the Rottweiler. Stove devotes many pages to the Darwinian pitbull. He sees as the perfect example of radical human. His task is not so much to justify the contradiction of Darwinism as we bring willingly or by force in the throat. The fanatics are not always those who you think.

3 - The Man Mou

The response of Man Mou to the contradiction of Darwinism do not constitute real one: it is an admission implied that there no contradiction because he ignores or pretends to ignore it. This ignorance is that the vast majority of us accept without too much difficulty most of the Darwinian doctrine, and condemn, however, not without a certain severity, the extravagances of Man Radical Social Darwinism and its eugenics in particular. Stove says that man is first Mou Darwin himself, this character shy, reserved, sensitive, secret last analysis, avoiding controversy like the plague, preferring the calm and careful study of its critters and flora, far from the furies that has yet raised.

The reassuring picture that emerges from Darwin himself, a little dark ages, a little bit worried, as disillusioned, is that of Man Mou we are, accepting, as a letter to post, however flagrant contradiction that contains the mythical religion of Modern Man, ours, that of Man Mou. "

I hope the summary report of the first test Darwinian Fairytales not spoil your Christmas Eve. My hope is that this fairy tale entices you and you put in appetite to devour the other fairy tales of fabulous storyteller that Darwinians was David Stove.

In any case, I can assure you that the student appeared entirely satisfied with my answer. Moreover, as a Catholic believer, I sincerely hope that Benedict XVI reviews the positions of the Church on the subject.

Cement Basketball Court Companies

NAO 2011: the latest proposals Branch

The Directorate reported on wage policy in 2011 that would be applied in case of signature:

 AI framework, budget 3.5% (excluding contract BURST)

 If progress toward a contract BURST export additional budget of 1% distributed to staff as part of an "increase individual generalized"

 Minimum frame revalued by 2%

CFTC Comment:

The budget of 3.5% is the minimum needed to help implement a wage policy individualized. If signed a contract BURST, it would be completed a little more for managerial staff. Without wanting to speak with GA This is the first time in several years that the company agrees to change its wage policy for this category of staff!

A budget not part of 3% (excluding contract BURST), distributed as follows:

 1.5% AI,

 1.5 FA% (paid 1/2/2011)

 If progress toward a contract BURST, additional budget of 1% FA

 Heel AG to 31.50 €

 13th month € 2020 mini

 Guaranteed Minimum Income € 1,830 (base + length + pro rata 13th month minimum)

 Minimum non-executive revalued by 1.5%,

CFTC Comment:

The budget of 1.5% in AI is still far too low to reward merit personnel. In addition, this budget will be cut from the premium associated with seniority (0.5%): there again few are chosen on merit!

If the total budget of AG would represent 2.5% (BURST case of a contract), there remain 0.6% below the 2010 inflation / 2011.

 Premium Salon 200 €

Added to this is:

 increased participation of the Directorate of the mutual non executives to continue to disengage the EC,

 changing the final tranche of PERCO 55 to 57 years to take account the lengthening of working life

 project for upgrading travel expenses which the Department must work during the first quarter of 2011.

RTT  Collective:

- June 3, 2011 (Ascension),

- June 13, 2011 (Whit Monday),

- from 26 to 30 December 2011,

- May 7, 2012 (Bridge May 8),

- May 18, 2012 (Ascension),

- May 28, 2012 (Whit Monday).

Note: the information note on the availability of passing four days package framework (RJR) will be released in January.

A final meeting is scheduled for January 11, 2011 to collect the positions of trade unions.

In the meantime the teams you want to CFTC you all a very happy holiday season.

Granite Countertop With A Drop In Stove

NAO last meeting on December 21

The result of the wage policy 2010 is not glorious:

• 3343 employees have not had a pay increase.

Following our benchmarks

At this stage of negotiation and to reverse the trend, the Department proposes the following wage policy:

• 3% under AI, AI 1.2% non-managerial, non-executive AG 1.3%. These proposals could be supplemented by provisions relating to a contract or BURST + 1% AI + 1% frame and non-executive FA,

• Adjustment part of the guaranteed minimum 1.5%

• Continuing contribution rules have PERCOs

• Bonus room € 200,

• Guaranteed monthly salary (GMI) 1825 €, 13th Floor months € 2015

Management maintains that these proposals "are likely to evolve," but they will be imposed for not signing the agreement.

CFTC For our team, even if we get a first contract BURST exports, latest Management proposals are inadequate because they posed the following problems:

• Budget 3% under AI, unambitious to define a merit increase (3.5% base) with the hard choices that will be done

AG • Budget not part of 1.3% well below the cumulative inflation of 2010 and forecast 2011 (3.1%), although it can be completed by 1 % following a contract BURST,

• Budget framework AI not 1.2%, well below the earlier wage policies,

All this apparently amid "economic crisis".

Breasts Have Pink Capellaries

WHEN THE PHILOSOPHY IS SEXY. RESPONSE TO FOGLIA

Men wear their heart in their sex, women wear their sex in their heart.

Malcolm de Chazal

Gustave Courbet (1819-1877), The origin of the world (1866)
The first picture pornographic?

in his column Saturday, December 11, Pierre Foglia blames sex education at school. Columnist recalls a truism: sexuality has become a commodity, and the school does not become a conduit for the market. Basically, "the ass is in the head," says the columnist bluntly, "it" can not be learned not. Sex education courses designed as a "mechanical 101" passes right next to the plate "is the Pistion and cylinders," said Foglia nicely.

Foglia has both right and wrong. How so? It is perfectly true to say that sex has now become a commodity, and it is deplorable. Anyone living in society of ours hyperconsumption admit it willingly. It is wrong however to believe that sexuality can not be learned even if it is true, however, that sexuality has nothing mechanical because it "is only in the head." What do we mean exactly by saying that sexuality is "in the head? Foglia has nothing specific to say on it that can be an education precisely because sexuality, he says, is personal and subjective. "Science of sexuality" - sexology, in short - would be a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron. Neurology is wrong in trying to explain the functioning of the human spirit. Just as there can not be any objective study of the human spirit, he can not Nor have scientists studying what we are most intimate, namely sexuality.

is recognized there, the distance dualism, the French philosopher Rene Descartes (1596-1650) established at the dawn of the modern era. The objectivity of science, the philosopher believed, has never taken on the subjective world of thought. Yet, history has proved wrong the author of Discourse on Method since psychology became the science that we know.

A promising solution would be to leave the Cartesian dualism taking into sexuality as a human practice with a logic of its own. That's what I would like to show here. We ask, first: how different sexual pleasure he's happy there to eat and drink? Is this the same as the objective of relaxing in a hot bath? Or observe a child having fun?

Sexual pleasure has some similarities with these other pleasures mentioned, but it differs significantly. Experience sexual pleasure does not resemble that of the table in that, of course, it does not consume her partner! It also differs the pleasure of bathing in that sexual pleasure involves a partner (although one can speak properly of "solitary pleasure").

Sexual pleasure is, among other things to experience bodily sensations, to ignite the desire, which is not so fun seeing a child. In fact, like sexual pleasure, but not perfectly identical, to the pleasure experienced in watching something or someone. Philosophers call this an essential property of consciousness, namely intentionality . The founder of phenomenology, Edmund Husserl (1859-1938), has made the fundamental intentionality of phenomenology . Consciousness, in fact, is always aware of something. A rock is not conscious of anything, not even she is a rock. By cons, my fear of a spider is an act of consciousness as it is directed towards the spider in question. It may well be that the spider does not actually exist and that the emotion is therefore moot, that is to say false or fictitious. Still, my feelings of fear, as a state of consciousness directed to one (so called) spider does exist. That is what the intentionality of human consciousness. The quote highlighted is literally false, but a phenomenological point of view, it summarizes the "essence" of our sexual practices. Husserl suspend all belief in the truth value of intentionality to describe the content "core" of consciousness. That is the purpose of phenomenology, who subsequently had a considerable impact, mainly in the philosophy known as "continental."

is however a British, Roger Scruton, that we owe a phenomenological study of human sexuality. In Sexual Desire (1986), Scruton states that sexual pleasure is not a pleasant sensation, even tickling. Sexual pleasure has a thought directed at anyone real or imaginary. Like any thought, sexual pleasure has therefore an intentionality in that it is directed at persons . That's what writing means Foglia commonly as "the ass is in the head."

Scruton writes:

[sexual pleasure] is the desire of a person: I say a person, not his body, conceived as a physical object, but the person seen as Incarnate a subject from which emanates a sense of self facing me, staring into the eyes, an ego to me. The real desire is also a kind of demand: it commands reciprocity, sharing and mutual abandonment. It's embarrassing and compromising. However, in this sense, a feeling is neither incriminating nor threatening.

For Scruton, the language of intentionality of sexuality has changed considerably since other degrees between John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), who argued, in particular On Liberty (1859) that

The only purpose for which men are justified, individually and collectively, to interfere with freedom of action of any of them, is self-protection. The only legitimate reason to have a civilized community to use force against one of its members, against his own will, is to prevent harm being done to others. The force for its own good, either physical or moral, does not provide sufficient justification ... The individual is sovereign over himself, his own body and his own mind.

Since Mill, therefore, "anything goes" as we say in English. Anything goes, obviously, for Mill, to the extent that partners are consenting. With the rout of the morality of the Catholic Church, the liberal sexual morality reigns supreme. In Canada, Pierre Elliot Trudeau was fond of repeating that the State not to "put its nose into the bedrooms of citizens", thus establishing the private nature of sexuality. We understand that under these conditions of sex education is a kind of impossibility in the extent of the liberal perspective, sexuality is strictly the responsibility of each staff. Foglia merely restating the consensus liberal social applied today on sexuality: it is a private affair .

The liberal view of sexuality so empty consciousness in sexuality its intentionality. Foglia quite right to stress the fact that sexuality has become a commodity. Since intentionality has disappeared from our understanding of sexuality, it is no longer an object for science, that is to say nothing more than a mechanical fact .. . "Pistons and cylinders. The obscenity and perversion were once beautiful game and a free hand. Anything goes. Of necrophilia to bestiality. Pedophilia is always wrong, however, because the young child is not (yet) able to give consent . Liberal in the wonderful world we live in, everything is a matter of consent, choice, autonomy, etc.. The choice of each reign supreme.

In the now old and obsolete conception of sexuality, it recalls Scruton, consisted mainly in the encounter of the other. Also, if I realize that a special trick, the one (or he) is not that I caress my (my) but another joint, all the features of my (my) partner, my sexual pleasure ceases on the field. It is like raping me. Sexual pleasure has therefore clearly a dimension epistemic because sexual pleasure may be wrong in the sense that I may be wrong partner.

When I caress my (or my) partner, among other things I aim to answer him as I (or) recognizes as embodied person in a body. That intentionality of human sexuality. We exhibit as persons embodied in the body, and we enjoy, enjoy, to be recognized in this way. This consciousness of being of "embedded" is the real "G spot" of sexuality. When our partner does not recognize us not as embodied person, but simply as "meat", a "cylinder or a piston, a" doll ", an" ass, "we feel despised, degraded, and sexual pleasure quickly becomes obnoxious, guilty, shameful. Rape is not something else, so it may even lead to suicide. Indeed, popular usage, the "ass" to refer to sexuality, is degrading and demeaning, because it focuses solely on the sexual body parts, obliterating the time the beauty and greatness in human emanates.

Let us not think, however, that the degradation of sexuality that we see today's date. Already Cicero in his treatise De old age, wrote: "The [...] is the friction coupling of a hose and ejaculation, with a spasm, a little snot. "Instead, the thinker of the Catholic Church, Thomas Aquinas - became" holy "- said - to the amazement of many today - that" No one can live body pleasure and without significant . "(Summa Theologica , II-II, q 168, art. 2). Moreover, even "holy" argues that our worst enemy is not the pleasure - sexual or otherwise - but fear - fear of pleasure, among other things, which most religious purists of once thundered.

Are we a soul in a body or a body without a soul? The metaphysical question does not arise from the perspective of phenomenological consciousness, because what matters is the "object" of consciousness, that this object exists or not, whatever. Sex education is in fact in education intentionality in sexual relations, that is to say, in the awareness of what makes us human beings in their own right, worthy of respect. I would sleep under the "chastity" is not so much in sexual abstinence in sexual enjoyment free of obscenity and perversion, where partners meet "physically and consciously" as as embodied persons in bodies exultant pleasure. Since all virtue is learned by practice, sex education lies in learning the "chastity" and understood.

Follando Con Las Famosas

NAO 2nd Meeting: A Year 2011 with a big question mark

change in tone of the Directorate, a strong speech in which we perceive a probation union!

According to Management, "Global analysis of the economic situation we say that 2011 will be a year with a big question mark."

"You start bargaining to where eventually the others "(companies of metallurgy), the Branch moved

• a budget of 2.5% for executives (all AI)

• a budget of 2% for non-management (shared between AG and AI).

"It's a starting point for negotiations that will substantially scalable.

In employment, given the uncertainties management does not want to prejudge the future.

"If our business recovers, there will necessarily hiring, but the adjustment variable pass through outsourcing."

Benchmarks:

INSEE Inflation + 1.6% at the end of October

Projected inflation for 2011 +1.5%

social security ceiling + 2 , 1% in 2011

point value to AGIRC 1/4/2010: € 0.4216

Value ARRCO 2010: € 1.1884

Allowances 1 / 1 / 2011 + 1.5%

CFTC PROPOSALS:

Given these factors and the results of the 2010 wage policy, the correct basis for negotiations which would at least maintaining the purchasing power would be 3.1% in applied non-executive AG. The results of the wage policies of past years have shown that non-AI budget under 1.7% was not enough! Despite this, we propose a budget of 4.8% for non-executives.

Taking into account the differential usual we would be for executives to 5.6% for AI.

Audiobook Stephen Fry Harry Potter

unbolting RELIGION: NATURAL AND EVOLUTIONARY DO NOT MIX! LA GRANDE ILLUSION OF DANIEL BARIL *

It is unfair to Descartes calls when some seriously its call to the truth of God. In fact, only by assuming a moral God, and always equal to itself as "truth" and the search for truth is a priori capable of having a sense of promise and success. If this God is put aside, it is permissible to ask whether being deceived is not part of the conditions of life .

Friedrich Nietzsche's posthumous fragments

It is important little off the monkey is essentially not to go back.
Richard Wagner

In this holiday season preceding Christmas and New Year's Day, it should consider the favorite game for fans of the debunking of morality and religion. A favorite target is Christianity. Already in 2008, our national debunkers, Daniel Baril, there was a small air layman wanting that " Christmas is nothing religious, no longer fir ( Le Devoir, Saturday, December 4, 2008).

In the City "liberal" in which we live, we must recognize that the Christmas decorations, with their Christian symbolism, or even Catholic, let more than one uncomfortable. Political correctness demands that one no longer wishes "Merry Christmas", but "happy holidays". The Christmas tree, under which our ancestors lived nursery houses the "holy family" is now banned from the city as being hopelessly "sectarian."

The debunkers of Christianity rejoice since, campaigning for a secular society, they feed on the current state of advanced decomposition of Christianity. In terms of ecological science, they are "decomposers " (or "scavengers").

Our decomposers, therefore, the religious appeal to the full range of science to achieve their end which is to eradicate any trace of religion in the public sphere to be a purely secular society.

Our National decomposer, Daniel Baril, former president of the Secular Movement in Quebec, is one of the leading campaigners for secularism. It is known in the Brights Movement . (1) The author did an essay published in 2006, The grand illusion. How natural selection has created the idea of God (Multimondes), where, as the title indicates, the author tries to show that religion is a social phenomenon that is explained by evolutionary biology: "... Religion appears [...] as a set of cultural norms and moral laws rooted in observable biological and maximize the chances of survival and reproduction of the individual . "(p. 41).

Explanation of religion that offers Baril type evolutionary in that it relies on the theory of natural selection of Darwin. Obviously, Darwin initially sought only to explain the origin of species. Much water has flowed under the bridge since then, and many researchers, waving the program of "naturalization of epistemology" put forward by Quine, attempted to bring the natural selection of cultural phenomena, such as religion. These researchers have announced the death of religion, but the weed is tough, and today, "God takes the best " as Baril said (title of Chapter 1). How to explain the phenomenon of religious belief that, despite the development of science since the Enlightenment, still seems to be still alive and ineradicable?

Daniel Baril explained. Religion, indeed, a fortiori, religious belief, has a fitness advantage to the environment, and similar to Durkheim, religion is "an expression shortened life collective whole" (p. 41 ). In sum, " religion is an epiphenomenon of our social legislation and collective . (P. 101-102)

Baril immediately hastens to reassure his fellow atheists and explaining that religion has a biological basis based on natural selection, does not mean that religious belief is true .

... if religious belief is an advantage and it promotes the survival of the individual, does this mean that religion is a good thing, even that God exists? Do not worry. The evolutionary approach adopted no support for this logic. There is no natural religion, but of the natural foundations of morality and religion. (P. 5)

As seen, the explanation of religious phenomena that offers Baril wants that religion is a kind of illusion veil doing, she invites us to believe in something "transcendent" illusion that hides its true source in its social function adaptively. In short, the believer is a victim without his knowledge a kind of blindness created entirely by biology to ensure its survival. Apparently, the mechanism Baril debunks the "make-believe."

naturalists In all his attempts to explain religion by something other than itself, Also wishing the reductionist thesis that religion reflects something other than yourself, there is this recurrent thesis according to which the religious belief is not false as illusory, chimerical, deceptive, etc. .

For Freud, for example, "[religious beliefs] are illusions, achieving the desires of the oldest, strongest, most pressing of mankind the secret of their strength is the strength those desires. "(2) Moreover, " the illusion is not necessarily wrong, it's impossible to say or inconsistent with reality . "writes the founder of psychoanalysis. The belief in God would provide, according to Freud, to meet vital needs and powerful security, affection, protection, God Father is the illusion that the believer invented to satisfy human needs visceral. However, we can not, Freud says, prove that religious beliefs are false, " We can no more refute that evidence. "But we can explain the mechanism which makes them illusions. This is exactly the same epistemological passed by Baril against of religious belief.

Basically Addresses Daniel Baril objection to religious belief is that it is not produced by properly functioning cognitive faculties aimed the truth as they would be deflected as it their normal frame, to ensure the group life. Baril wrote elsewhere:

Intentionality believers see in life shows that we perceive and understand our environment through mental faculties that have been selected to manage social relations. This distorting prism us to see the office where there is none and is the source of our intuitive hardly repressible anthropomorphism. (3)

In sum, according to Baril, our cognitive faculties we play tricks encouraging us has a life given to God, then God is not. He would go without saying that when someone believes in God's cognitive faculties are not functioning properly. Thus the belief in God would present no guarantee since it is the product of cognitive impairments which the normal purpose is to generate true beliefs .

Barrel uses a biological mechanism which necessarily produces illusory beliefs, that is to say, false. This, however, a gratuitous statement using the belief that God can not exist .

To say in effect that is true that God is not requires that our cognitive faculties are functioning properly. How, then, Baril can assure him that adheres to the theory of Darwinian evolution, its cognitive function correctly? The problem is that because human beliefs produced by natural selection does not cover the truth, but the adaptability and, therefore, the survival , point line.

" The brain is a machine to generate beliefs," says Professor James Alcock, a specialist in the psychology of belief at York University in Toronto. " The brain continues psychologist, has evolved to promote survival of the species, not to seek the truth." (4)

Darwin was the first to worry about the problem: evolution ensures she true beliefs? In a letter written to a friend, William Graham, July 3, 1881, a year before his death, we read:

For me, the horrid doubt always arises as to whether the beliefs Rights, which developed in the minds of lower animals are of any value or reliable. Who would trust the beliefs of a monkey, even if beliefs exist in his mind? (5)

In sum, if one adheres to the theory of Darwinian evolution, as Baril, then the belief that naturalism is true and, therefore, that God is not , n is not at all assured.

So, basically, the objection that the powerful American Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga, addressed to naturalism. (6) The conclusion of the objection Plantinga admits that whoever wants to naturalism, should the abandon it also admits Darwin's evolutionism. It therefore follows that naturalism "self-defeating" and therefore it can not be rationally accepted.

The alternative to the Christian philosopher is to believe that human cognitive faculties are the result of an evolutionary process governed by God so that their function ensures that these schools produce beliefs not only adaptive but true. In sum, in a reliability based epistemology which adheres Plantinga, religious belief is more reliable that of naturalism because it offers a guarantee that the other does not (7).

can, if you will, fun to debunk (or "break") the Christian religion (or another) by showing that it relies on mechanisms that illusion. However, as we have seen, the combination of the theory of evolution and naturalism on the drawer pulls. The followers of this game double-edged sword should think twice before continuing their business, start by answering the objections of powerful Plantinga. Of course, followers of Darwin's evolutionism to take this theory as the best that is based in science. Without being a supporter of creationism or intelligent design, it has raised serious objections against the theory of Darwinian evolution. I think in particular Australian philosopher, David Stone, who, in Darwinian Fairytales (1995) (striking another book which I will in a future post), had fun before his death to debunk what he should regarded as the "religion" of modern man, namely Darwinian evolutionism.'s company unbolting, as shown, is played by two. On that note, Merry Christmas !

NOTES

* This text is a statement submitted to the Society for Philosophy of Quebec for its ACFAS conference in 2010 on naturalism. My text was denied. People often wonder why the philosophical life in Quebec is so poor. The evidence, however, jumps to the eyes. I console myself by expecting nothing of our "big brothers" academics who are poisoning the free exercise of philosophy.
(1) This movement consists of individuals who adopt a posture "naturalist," that is to say free of supernatural or religious component, and the brights base their ethics and their conduct in a naturalistic conception of the universe. The serious problem facing the proponent of naturalism is precisely to know what "naturalism." See Normand Baillargeon Up there, there is nothing. Anthology of unbelief and freethinking , PUL, collection When philosophy is pop!, 2010, p. 49-53. See also my account of Bailey's book in this blog .
(2) Sigmund Freud, The Future an illusion, PUF, 1971, p. 43. Originally published in 1927.
(3) Daniel Baril, Darwin and immortality (the idea) of God, " Le Devoir, 28-29 April 2007. I emphasize "distorting prism".
(4) Quoted in Quebec Science , Noemi Mercier, "Why do you believe", April 2008, p. 22.
(5) Quoted in James Beilby . Naturalism Defeated? Essays on Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism , Cornell University Press, 2002, p.3.
(6) Plantinga's argument was published in 1991 in the journal Logos under the title "An Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism." It is mentioned in the book of Beilby cited in the previous note.
(7) See Plantiga Alvin, Warranted Christian Belief , Oxford University Press, 2000. This work is major, but no one speaks and no one wants to talk.