In the news this week ...

We Can't Teach Students to Love Reading

Alan Jacobs' book on reading is a gem. Arrived yesterday, finished it today. Couldn't put it down. Jacobs is an excellent writer.

Also on Jacobs, CanonWired recently published a video on his C.S. Lewis book. The format is a roundtable discussion with Jacobs, Doug Wilson and Nate Wilson.

https://www.canonwired.com/featured/alan-jacobs-imagination-lewis/

P Zed responds to James Woods.

Or even James Wood.

Just curious, do you ever pull your news articles from conservative publications or sites? Or do you already & I'm just missing something? I'm seeing NPR, The New Yorker Magazine, The Guardian, etc.
I enjoy reading articles from every point of view but am missing a bit of balance here.Perhaps I'm wrong...?

grokesx

Can't see the wood for the plural...

Isn't that the point of the Guardian article...


sorry, couldn't resist! :-)

@Peter

Nice one.

mscracker, #4;

"Just curious, do you ever pull your news articles from conservative publications or sites?"

I can just imagine the embarrassed, stony silence if you asked this question in a room full of BBC people, everyone shuffling uneasily and looking down at their feet before someone started giggling, then they tried to contain their guffaws... I'll whisper it to you ever so discreetly - the BBC is the broadcasting wing of the Manchester Guardian.

7.Theophane

"the BBC is the broadcasting wing of the Manchester Guardian."
***
Is it really?? Or is that a humorous remark? Sorry, I really don't know but I'm guessing it's a joke?
I really do appreciate the BBC, but the more I see of it, the further the center seems to moves to the left.Of course we all see things through a filter.Mine is American.We see things differently I guess.

You're not the first person to wonder if i'm trying to be funny!

Michele Bachmann explained at a rally that the recent earth quake and hurricane activity in the US were god trying to get the attention of politicians. His message to them was that they need to cut government.

https://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/hundreds-turn-out-for-bachmann-rally-in-sarasota-but-some-prefer-perry/1188559

"I don't know how much God has to do to get the attention of the politicians. We've had an earthquake; we've had a hurricane. He said, 'Are you going to start listening to me here?' Listen to the American people because the American people are roaring right now. They know government is on a morbid obesity diet and we've got to rein in the spending."

Peter Klaver -

Yes, Michele Bachmann has successfully discredited Christianity with her wacky views, and we should all therefore become atheists.

I mean, it's not as though there are any Christians in the world who would disagree with her, are there??!

(Which I guess is my roundabout way of asking: And your point is??)

@mscracker

Just curious, do you ever pull your news articles from conservative publications or sites?

Well, the last time Will posted a load of links, on the riot of explanations pages - where you added a comment thanking him for the articles - there were a couple of pieces from the Telegraph, affectionately known as the Torygraph, one from Murdoch's Times, one article from Mad Mel Philips in the Daily Mail, not known as a left wing rag, one from the Irish Times, socially liberal but economically to the right; and one from the Christian Institute, a conservative Christian publication.

@LSV

So the views, wacky or otherwise, of a contender for the role of the most powerful politician in the world, are not worth highlighting?

Mscracker, I'd say the BBC has a better claim to the tag line 'fair & balanced' than Fox :p

In a week where the Vatican has effectively silenced one of the foremost catholic theological magazines, - the same Vatican which attempted to silence Hans Kung, sacked Bishop Morris of Australia, awarded Rupert Murdoch a Papal Knighthood, - and Theophane queries the impartiality of the BBC???????????

In terms of trying to be funny, Theo, you are definitely on a roll!!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8728400/Martin-Green-Give-patients-choice-over-when-they-die.html

I agree with Martin Green. Patients who are to frail to take their own lives and who are determined to die should be assisted to do so. I have a friend who worked in a nursing home and she said that with some patients there were few signs of life at all. They had to be turned over every so often and their beds were like coffins without lids. If they want to live they should, of course, have that choice - but others might prefer to die.

grokesx (@ 13) -

So the views, wacky or otherwise, of a contender for the role of the most powerful politician in the world, are not worth highlighting?

I didn't say that her views were not worth highlighting. What I wanted to know is why Peter made that particular point. If someone is going to highlight the views of a politician, then there must be some reason to do so.

I am sure every candidate on both sides of the political divide has controversial views about something or other. As a Christian with strong political convictions, inevitably Bachmann is going to assert that there is no contradiction between her theological and political views (not a view I share, by the way). That is hardly newsworthy, is it (especially within the context of American politics)?

I suppose people are entitled to state the obvious here on this blog. Fair enough.

But one can hardly blame others for trying to "read between the lines"!

PK, If Bachmann gets elected, I could envisage the States disintegrating. She's so far right of centre no country as diverse as America could withstand that onslaught intact. Bachmann & social pundits such as as Hannity talk of patriotism, yet they're the most unpatriotic of all. The US might as well be the 1931 Weimar Republic right now

newlach (@ 16) -

I have a friend who worked in a nursing home and she said that with some patients there were few signs of life at all. They had to be turned over every so often and their beds were like coffins without lids. If they want to live they should, of course, have that choice - but others might prefer to die.

If such patients were so frail and displayed so few signs of life, then how come it is assumed that they would be "strong" enough mentally, and aware enough, to make a genuine free will informed choice?

Sounds like a contradiction to me.

And, of course, you are forgetting that a lot of older people feel that they are a "burden" to their family anyway (and in some families - especially those that are hankering for the inheritance - such fears may be justified). So therefore with such vulnerable and frail people, there is the serious danger of making them feel that they "ought to" choose to die, in order to relieve their family.

Furthermore, when someone is in pain and distress, there may be times when they feel that they just "want to die". This may be an expression of extreme frustration, which could be interpreted as "consent". It may be nothing of the sort, of course, but just the sort of suicidal expression that is quite normal in times of extreme pain and suffering. So how can we be sure that genuine "consent" has really been given?

One further comment re newlach's post #16...

If they want to live they should, of course, have that choice - but others might prefer to die.

I think it is absolutely obscene that anyone should be put in a position where they feel that they have to "choose to live". Life should NEVER be a choice, but AN ASSUMED RIGHT.

Isn't it ironic that Christians are often accused of promoting "pie in the sky" and not caring about this life on earth? In fact, we are the ones who truly champion life in the here and now, and it is those who claim to care only about this life (since that is the only life they believe exists) who are actually constantly promoting death, whether it's death for the unborn (who have no choice in the matter) or death for the elderly (who may have seriously impaired choice).

William

Just a suggestion but maybe the recent attack on Theological Studies by the Vatican deserves wider scrutiny. In my time there have certainly been books which were banned from seminary libraries.

However, this latest move has caused uproar amongst theologians around the world.

The effects of Josef Ratzinger's membership of the Hitler Youth have often been dismissed as ludicrous on here (by some.) A recent contributor to NCR makes the point that maybe this part of Ratzinger's life was not as "involuntary" or as "un-influencial" as some would claim.

https://ncronline.org/news/vatican/vatican-pressures-theology-journal?page=1

Here he goes again with his Nazi line. Pathetic, utterly pathetic.

@10. PeterKlaver:
I'm not a supporter at this time of Michelle Bachmann, but her remarks about the recent natural disasters/earthquake are understood by most folks here to be only partly serious.

@21.Will_Crawley :
Thank you for your reply.As I stated, I may be missing something.I'm not overly familiar with Irish & UK media.There may very well be articles here from more conservative publications. Plus,I do see things through a different filter than those of you across the water.
This is your blog & you certainly have the freedom to choose articles of interest.
Just adding my 2 cents re NPR & The New Yorker. The New York Times is thought by many Americans to be far left of center, too.Those 3 media sources while respected in talent, really don't reflect much of America in real life outside the urban Northeast Coast. (I'm sure NPR would beg to differ.)

Bachmann: "I don't know how much God has to do to get the attention of the politicians. We've had an earthquake; we've had a hurricane. He said, 'Are you going to start listening to me here?' "

Then she said she was speaking in jest.

lsv: “Michele Bachmann has successfully discredited Christianity with her wacky views, and we should all therefore become atheists.”

Point taken. Whether expressing a belief or joking, she discredited herself, not Christianity. Correct? And it SHOULD be a discrediting of Michele Bachmann.

mscracker,

‘Partly’ serious is too much - because she’s an Evangelical Christian and, as we know, (not all, but) many such people hear, and voice forward, similar beliefs coming from the podium and from their peers. Beliefs involving people, nature and God's purpose, and punishment, blame, shame, etc. Bachmann’s expression of her *brand* of belief in God, has discredited her.

People should take note. That belief or that joke should keep her from touching the White House, unless she takes some turn to indicate she no longer believes that: "I give more credence in the Scripture as being kind of a timeless word of God to mankind, and

I take it for what it is. (whatever that means. Oh, she just told us, so no more confusion, right?)

And I don't think I give as much credence to my own mind, (There’s the meat of it. Non-belief in her own mind. This individual clearly stated that she is unable to make decisions for herself without Scripture.)

because I see myself as being very limited and very flawed, and lacking in knowledge, and wisdom and understanding.” -stated in 2003

Re politicians & the Almighty, I wonder how this would be received by the media today:

" They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy....And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union."
Abraham Lincoln-Thanksgiving Proclamation, 1863
Full text in link below:
https://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/thanks.htm

LSV

Let me be clear. I am not suggesting that:

1. Patients who wish to live should be forced to die, and;
2. patients who have expressed no wish either way should be forced to die.

There must be informed consent and procedures must be put in place to safeguard the interests of the vulnerable.

If the patient who is confined to a bed unable to move requests to die, measures would have to be in place to ensure that that is what s/he really wants. Terry Pratchett, for example, has suggested the idea of a tribunal service to record people's wishes (would also be useful for those who subsequently become unable to give informed consent eg the senile). I accept that this is not back of a cigarette packet stuff, but lawyers and psychiatrists could easily ensure a workable system.

'I think it is absolutely obscene that anyone should be put in a position where they feel that they have to "choose to live".'

You should tell that to your boss!

"I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live." Deut. 30:19

Just one more from Abe Lincoln, (too good to pass up):

"The Bible says somewhere that we are desperately selfish. I think we would have discovered that fact without the Bible."
Debate at Alton, Illinois, on October 15, 1858

newlach

I have no desire to become involved in this latest conversation about the termination of life (LSV is doing a fine job as it is); however, as it is relevant to one of the topics raised on this thread and as the bible has been quoted out of context, again, on this blog, in order to make a point, it strikes me that someone should write a 101 course for atheists on biblical interpretation

If I were tasked with producing such a resource, I would entitle it, “Jesus isn’t an *actual* sheep”.

Peter

What would you call the sequel, 'I am not a door'?

newlach (@ 28) -

You should tell that to your boss!

"I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live." Deut. 30:19

As if I am going to take Bible lessons from someone who doesn't even believe in the veracity of the Bible anyway!

As has already been pointed out, you have taken this verse completely out of context (does this really surprise me?).

Let's go back to the beginning of this saying in verse 15 of Deuteronomy chapter 30:
"See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil..."

Please note that "life and death" are understood in terms of "good and evil", that is, as the consequences of a moral choice. So those who choose to commit evil will die ("die" including various forms of death - spiritual, psychological, spiritual, social and, of course, physical). This clearly has absolutely nothing to do with the subject under discussion.

Every time I get in my car I can choose "life" by deciding to drive responsibly, or I could choose "death" (or, at least, the risk of death) - both for myself and others - if I decide to drive recklessly. This is a moral choice with potentially life and death consequences.

The suggestion that this kind of moral choice has anything at all to do with "the choice of life or death" in relation to euthanasia, has got to be one of most fatuous and perverse attempts at twisting someone's argument that I have ever seen!!

I am talking about people who have not necessarily trangressed a moral law, and therefore they should never be put in a position where they have to "choose to live", simply because they are old, vulnerable and extremely ill. Our society should have one uncompromising attitude towards such people, and that is a total commitment to life.

marieinaustin (@ 26) -

lsv: “Michele Bachmann has successfully discredited Christianity with her wacky views, and we should all therefore become atheists.”

Point taken. Whether expressing a belief or joking, she discredited herself, not Christianity. Correct? And it SHOULD be a discrediting of Michele Bachmann.

I was, of course, being sarcastic!

Hey lsv,

I know you were being sarcastic. :)

Sarcasm can be difficult to discern when written, though. Communication can be difficult when written, too. :-P

I meant “whether -She was- expressing a belief or joking, she discredited herself.”

------------------------------------------------------

Great Void,

The least of my questions shall be first: Why are there multi news, peters and now andrews? I’m one to talk. Because sometimes there are plenty of maries and marias.

Peter

What would you call the sequel, 'I am not a door'?

The thrid volume should be called 'I am not a vine'.

The series can be called 'The three denials of Christ' by peterm2.

marieinaustin (I'm assuming TX, rather than 7?)

I'm as happy with peter or peterm as I am with peterm2. The reason for the 2 (which seemed like a good idea at the time) was to establish some kind of continuity with a previous username which ran into login troubles and had to be changed.


Andrew_II (I'm assuming you're 'Andrew', rather than 'not Andrew'?)

re, "'I am not a door'"

I think you're missing a trick here by leaving out the word *actual*. *Actual* has the potential of acting as a trademark, or even a ministry name; what do you think?

'Gospel Ministries, *actually*', for example, or '*Actually*, I'm a Christian, are you?' (Useful for street evangelism or an evangelical chat up line), you get the idea. If I copyright it I could make a bob or two! We could have WWJ*A*D bracelets and a, 'This is the Bible, *Actually*', Bible version - the idea would be that people would *actually* read it, and so on.

And then a celebrity atheist could write a book entitled 'Jesus is not *actually* a god', and it would sell like hot cakes (even though it wasn't *actually* a hot cake)...

Andrew

You actually answered your own question (or comment) there. I've never actually seen that done so obviously on this blog before. I suppose there is merit in it though - it beats having other people assume they know what any of us are talking about!

As for the series, yes, it literally could be called 'The three denials of Christ' by peterm2.'

Peter

Andrew_II (I'm assuming you're 'Andrew', rather than 'not Andrew'?)

I've started a dynasty. Andrew "I" had login troubles and by login troubles I mean he didn't *really* have login troubles. What *actually* happened is a family secret.

I think you're missing a trick here by leaving out the word *actual*. *Actual* has the potential of acting as a trademark, or even a ministry name; what do you think?

Yes, I see what you mean. The *actually* Bible could be a tome of propositional logic.

You actually answered your own question (or comment) there. I've never actually seen that done so obviously on this blog before.

I was giddy with excitement. I saw the whole enterprise unfold before my eyes.

As for the series, yes, it literally could be called 'The three denials of Christ' by peterm2.'

Yes! To deny that Christ is *actually* a sheep, a door, a vine, to the exegetically challenged atheist this is to deny Christ. The three denials...well you know where that goes.

I wondering though, what kind of work shall it be? I'm obviously tipping towards a satire but then that might require a commentary series to explain the *actually* behind it, so I might be creating double the work for you.

Andrew

You had login problems too? Holy Moly! Perhaps there's a conspiracy to deny Christians access to the airwaves. (I know, this is a blog, but 'airwaves' actually has a meaning beyond the literal, literally.)

"I was giddy with excitement. I saw the whole enterprise unfold before my eyes."

Does this indicate that you are a Reformed Charismatic? If that is the case then you wouldn't actually need a commentary or a bible or anything, you'd just know everything.

"I'm obviously tipping towards a satire.."

You really ought to have someone fix that chair of yours.

mscracker post 24, marieinaustin post 26,

"I'm not a supporter at this time of Michelle Bachmann, but her remarks about the recent natural disasters/earthquake are understood by most folks here to be only partly serious."

"Then she said she was speaking in jest."

That is the line her campaign team put our when Bachmnann started catching bad press for her remark. None of the reporters who were there got the impression she was kidding. It smells of transparent damage control.

LSV, if you want to think through any point re Bachmanns statement then you might consider the implications of the many different, incompatible views that all sit inside the big name tent called Christianity. You apparently see Bachmanns remarks re natural distasters as stupid. Well good on you. However you would very much agree with her anti-science bs. In the same way that you would vehemently disagree with a Catholic who follows the Vaticans party line on theistic evolution or an evangelical protestant christian like Francis Collins.

So many people calling themselves christians, with views that are really not compatible. And most of them probably thinking they have it right and others have it wrong. Are you among one of those groups who think they have it right and others with very different views therefore can't be right?

You had login problems too? Holy Moly! Perhaps there's a conspiracy to deny Christians access to the airwaves. (I know, this is a blog, but 'airwaves' actually has a meaning beyond the literal, literally.)

I never had you as surfer.

My profile was deleted by a series of unfortunate events. Literally literal unfortunate events but not *actual* unfortunate events. You see?

Does this indicate that you are a Reformed Charismatic? If that is the case then you wouldn't actually need a commentary or a bible or anything, you'd just know everything.

That would be nice but it's not a tap I can turn on and off.

Peter Klaver (@ 41) -

However you would very much agree with her anti-science bs.

Certainly not!

I am not, have never been, and never will be "anti-science", as I have explained numerous times.

What I am "anti-" is "bad philosophy exploiting science in order to promote a particular ideology".

There is not one thing that I have ever said on this blog which is contrary to the proper functioning of the scientific method. If you think there is, then find it!

Peter Klaver;

"So many people calling themselves christians, with views that are really not compatible."

How often have we seen this postulated on the blog?

Here's a fun video on William Lane Craig's upcoming tour of the UK:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mioJYqRVDE&feature=player_embedded

There is not one thing that I have ever said on this blog which is contrary to the proper functioning of the scientific method. If you think there is, then find it!

You might consider telling us what your understanding of the "proper functioning of the scientific method" is, first.

Andrew_II

It is an extremely well-made PR video and I hope that William is receiving royalties for the clip included of Sunday Sequence! I would like to see the debate with Peter Atkins.

In this short video we get to hear the man himself debating with Christopher Hitchens.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOpFAZqQ2R4&NR=1

Andrew, #45;

That is a very interesting 'trailer'. To have earned Christopher Hitchens' respect, William Lane Craig must be a formidable opponent - no wonder the secularist fundamentalists are nowhere to be seen. Meanwhile Professor Richard Dawkins is quoted as saying;

"We'll have a friendly conversation about it, and I'll win the argument."

I believe this is an only-partially-successful attempt to adopt the mantle of legendary Nottingham Forest manager Brian Clough, who said;

"If I had an argument with a player we would sit down for twenty minutes, talk about it and then decide I was right."

All the more embarrassing for Dawkins then that Clough's most famous quote was;

"If God had wanted football to be played in the air, He would have put grass in the sky."

newlach

Not a great fan of Atkins. I think he's a bit of a potboiler. I'll be interested to see how the debates will Peter Millican and Stephen Law go.

I actually quite like Christopher Hitchens. As a rhetorician he is superior to Craig. Whereas Craig, I think, is better at argumentation.

I found Hitchens against Doug Wilson the most interesting debate of the recent crop.

grokesx (@ 46) -

You might consider telling us what your understanding of the "proper functioning of the scientific method" is, first.

Being based on empiricism, we know that the scientific method cannot provide us with a complete "world view", because the empirical method is limited (the obvious reason being that it cannot validate empiricism itself).

Therefore "the proper functioning of the scientific method" is to study nature without attempting to encroach on those areas outside its remit.

As I have been accused of being "anti-science", I would be interested to know what views I have affirmed that conflict with the empirical method (understood as functioning within its proper parameters).

MCC

"Here he goes again with his Nazi line. Pathetic, utterly pathetic."

Not really a peer reviewed comment. You should really attempt to say why it is "utterly pathetic."

Bishop Morris of Australia, a very compassionate man, - sacked. Bishop Williamson, a holocaust denier - welcomed back to the fold.

That is just one example. I have given you many more examples over the last two years during our exchanges on here. I dont think I deserve to be dismissed as "pathetic, utterly pathetic."

I think I have a point. Your argument at the time of Williamson's incredible welcome back to the Church was, look how forgiving the Pope is.

Do you have any friends in the field of Psychology? Go have a pint with them if you do.

@LSV

....without attempting to encroach on those areas outside its remit.

What areas would they be, then?

grokesx (@ 52) -

What areas would they be, then?

I'm surprised you are even asking the question, considering that I included one of them in the post to which you are responding.

Shall I remind you?

...because the empirical method is limited (the obvious reason being that it cannot validate empiricism itself).

As William Lane Craig intelligently pointed out to a rather shell-shocked Peter Atkins, science cannot explain everything, including "science" itself.

Douglas Groothuis on Bachmann and 'dominionism';

https://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Michele-Bachmann-and-Dominionism-Paranoia-Douglas-Groothuis-08-26-2011.html

LSV

It would have been good to hear Atkin's response, but it was cut. That said, Craig came across as an excellent communicator and I think Atkins probably regretted asking him a question about science and omnipotence. If I recall correctly he made a slip when he appeared on Sunday Sequence - he writes beautifully, though!

@LSV

Details, mate, details.

I'm interested in what specific areas you think the empirical method does not apply. Because there is probably a difference between "the proper functioning of the scientific method" and "the proper functioning of the scientific method as understood by you (or me)".

So, expatiate.

@LSV @ Newlach

Atkins reply to WLC sort of answered the point about science itself, explaining how it attains its authority through its ongoing success, but since he had made an ass of himself by claiming omnipotence for it, it didn't really work. He also challenged WLC on aesthetics and morality, IIRC, and there was a bit of talking across one another until the moderator changed the subject, and so the details weren't explored.

grokesx (@ 56) -

I'm interested in what specific areas you think the empirical method does not apply.

I have never said that there are areas where "the empirical method does not apply", as if to suggest that this method has no function at all in those areas. What I am saying is that there are certain indispensable aspects of reality, which we cannot discover to be true or valid by means of the empirical method, even if that method has a limited corroborative use within those areas.

An example would be morality - "what we ought to do". Of course, we can use the empirical method to support our ethical arguments, but it cannot tell us fundamentally whether something is morally 'right' or 'wrong', since this method deals with describing impersonal mechanics. For what reason should we use a stick of dynamite? Studying the properties of the explosive will shed no light on this ethical question.

Another example is epistemology. We have to have a theory of knowledge in place before we embark on empirical studies. Nothing in nature will tell us that "we must assume that all knowledge derives from sense perception".

Of course, the empirical method can be used to test theories, but pragmatism is subject to teleology: to what end are we seeking for certain things to work? So there's another one: teleology or purpose.

Is that enough to be getting on with?

LSV, you asked in what way you had been anti-science.

As an example I could mention various cases where you are happy to talk down scientific knowledge or insights when your criticism against them appears very much to be based solely on ignorance of the subject at hand. Take dark matter for example. You show not having much of a clue what the idea that there is dark matter is based on. Yet you proceed to talk down the process how the conclusions that there is dark matter are reached.

On the subject of how conclusions are reached, you are highly inconsistent. You are happy to claim from inference, without any explanation or detail, that nature shows there is a designer. Yet on a subject like evolution, where a wealth of evidence is available, where mechanisms are known and understood ranging from the big picture to very fine detail, you jump on any bits of inference in the process to immediately dismiss it. Your double standards are so very wide apart.

The same is true when you go into yet more attempts to mix philosophy into scientific discussions. The very same as in this thread when you post to grokesx about the limits of empiricism. Yet you're never bothered about those when you're holding up something based on empirical evidence that you think helps the case for goddunnit.

And then there is the willful ignorance that is akin to putting your hands over your ears and going 'I can't hear you'. And your total unwillingness to admit your errors and improve your positions. Remember your mathematics argument based on the utter impossibility of negative probabilities, that you tried to adapt and wriggle out of on countless times, rather than just admitting your blunder there.


So we have your ignorant talking down of areas science that produce the only good explanation so far for the diversity of life on our planet, because it doesn't involve god. We have your ignorant talking down of other areas of science in your broader efforts to pretend science makes wild assumptions, so that you can try to justify your wild assumptions. We have your double standards in which the extensive understanding that science produces is ignorantly dismissed while you defend a non-explanation of 'goddunnit' with a 'You can't expect me to actually produce any explanation about how my magic man operates!'. We have your hypocrisy in banging on about philosophical presuppositions to discredit scientific results that kill your god explanation, while you're never bothered with them when empirical evidence suits you. And your unwillingness to admit and correct even the most obvious errors, which also doesn't make for good science.

Yes, you're a great friend of science all right. :(

Stafford Carson gives some good advice on understanding the bible;

https://www.staffordcarson.com/2011/09/preaching-the-bible/

I have never said that there are areas where "the empirical method does not apply

I'm not sure there is a substantive difference between that and "encroach on those areas outside its remit", but hey ho.

An example would be morality

Apart from Sam Harris recently, I can't think of a scientist who advocates using science to get an ought from an is. I'm not convinced by Harris's arguments, but his idea of using the well being of conscious creatures as a yardstick is no more bonkers than using old books of dubious provenance.

Another example is epistemology. We have to have a theory of knowledge in place before we embark on empirical studies.

No we don't. The practice of science is independent of anything the philosophers of science have to say on the matter. When Popper proclaimed that evolution was not a testable theory, but a metaphysical research programme, the science didn't change one jot. Likewise when he changed his mind.

At its most basic level, the scientific method is just trial and error. The first clever ancient men who worked out how to hunt mammoths by digging pits and luring them in were practising rudimentary science, as is a do it yourself enthusiast when he works out why his lights have blown. Theories of knowledge are not important here, getting things right is.

to what end are we seeking for certain things to work?

We are an inquisitive species. No other purpose required.

Anyway, we're skirting, here. Peter K compared your stance on science to Bachman's, and you have spent time on here making arguments indistinguishable to creationist ones. Are there any areas in that neck of the woods that are outside science's remit?

Ah, my post 59 to LSV has been referred to the moderators.

It doesn't make for very good discussion if people ask what makes their position anti-scientific, then make the answers to that question disappear.

Censoring peoples words rather than answering them does mean you pretty much sign the unconditional surrender in the debate. And don't come up with that it was too strong or any excuse like, it wasn't. The blog is on pre-mod and my post passed without the slightest trouble.

grokesx

I'm not convinced by Harris's arguments, but his idea of using the well being of conscious creatures as a yardstick is no more bonkers than using old books of dubious provenance.

I haven't managed to read his book yet. What are his arguments and why do you find them unpersuasive?

grokesx (@ 61) -

I'm not sure there is a substantive difference between that and "encroach on those areas outside its remit", but hey ho.

OK, I'm prepared to concede that "encroach" is the wrong word. Science can "encroach" on any area of life, in the sense that it can "speak into" any area. An example would be the claim by someone that they had been miraculously healed by God. Medical science can obviously "speak into" such a claim.

What I meant - and I accept the wording was poor - was that all that we recognise to be "knowledge" cannot derive from the empirical scientific method alone.

Apart from Sam Harris recently, I can't think of a scientist who advocates using science to get an ought from an is. I'm not convinced by Harris's arguments, but his idea of using the well being of conscious creatures as a yardstick is no more bonkers than using old books of dubious provenance.

Fine. There is nothing in that paragraph which contradicts what I am saying. Whatever the source of morality, it clearly does not derive from science. And yet morality per se cannot be entirely subjective, since we cannot live without a moral code. Look at most news items in the media, and they concern moral issues. How is it, therefore, that something central to our lives lies outside the epistemological scope of the empirical scientific method, in the sense that science alone cannot tell us what is fundamentally "right" or "wrong"?

Of course, my argument cannot prove the validity of the Bible specifically. I am simply questioning the claims of philosophical materialism. In fact, I am arguing more for a respectful agnosticism more than anything else (even though I am a convinced Christian). So there is a kind of "via negativa" to my approach. I would argue that the necessity of morality bears witness to a reality that goes beyond the merely physical.

to be continued... (fallen foul of the word limit again!)...

...continued from post #64 ...

The practice of science is independent of anything the philosophers of science have to say on the matter.

If that is so, then what is the problem?

Someone who believes in an intelligent creator can "do science" on that basis. So what are we arguing about? The step from "methodological" to "philosophical" materialism is a progression that requires an a priori epistemological position. If it is simply about "pure" science (whatever that means), then method should not be confused with metaphysics.

We are an inquisitive species. No other purpose required.

That is simply a matter of opinion. I cannot see how that conclusion is the result of any scientific experiment. Yet the sense of purpose (even frequently "read into" the supposedly "blind" process of evolution and natural selection) is a necessary part of human experience.

57 grotesx

I certainly agree with you that science attains its authority through ongoing success. Feynman makes the point that the important thing is that new ideas that can be tested keep coming along and that it is not the job of science to consider where they came from.

"There is no authority who decides what is a good idea. We have lost the need to go to an authority to find out wheter an idea is true or not. We can read an authority and let him suggest something; we can try it out and find out if it is true or not. If it is not true, so much the worse - so the "authorities" lose some of their "authority".

64 Lsv-

In fact, I am arguing more for a respectful agnosticism more than anything else

I agree with you there & I would even go as far as agreeing with your 'convinced Christian' bit in the sense I believe Quakerism/Unitarianism as the best delivery system for morality, ethics, spirituality & scientific understanding- In essense, the best package humanity has for progress in all areas.
Re Science- Aephraim Steinberg, Physics Professor at the University of Toronto, recently said-

"...is that while we've learned to calculate the outcomes of all sorts of experiments, we've lost much of our ability to describe what is really happening in any natural language.

I think that this has really hampered our ability to make progress, to come up with new ideas and see intuitively how new systems ought to behave"

Senior Belfast priest, Father Hugh Kennedy, stands down:

https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-14784290

'"Bishop Treanor requested me to stand aside from all my priestly/cathedral duties on foot of information he had received," he said.'

Christian ethicist Oliver O'Donovan on 'good without God';

https://vimeo.com/24595212

@Andrew # 63

Harris introduces the main ideas of the book here.

And answers some of his critics here.

I think Russell Blackford highlights the problems well and although Harris answers the objections cogently, and although he's got a lot closer than anyone in deriving an ought from an is, he hasn't quite succeeded in overturning Hume.

From anything other than a strict philosophical point of view, I think Harris is close to nailing it. I was being a bit coy when I said his way is no more bonkers than relying on old books - his way is is light years behind that in the bonkers-ness stakes.

Whatever the source of morality, it clearly does not derive from science.

Of course it doesn't, even Harris wouldn't argue with that. But that is not to say science cannot study it and attempt to work out if it is composed of genes, environment, brains, culture and all the other facets and products of of the natural, physical world. So sure, even if we fail to be convinced that science can tell us how we ought to behave, what choices we should make in any given situation, we can seek to explain what morality is and how it came about. It may be that we never get a full account, no matter how much we learn, but there's a fair chance that we would be a lot closer than we would be if we accepted trite assertions like "And yet morality per se cannot be entirely subjective, since we cannot live without a moral code" and carry on as if there is nothing left to know, except from the pages of old books.

Anyway, the pub quiz and demon drink beckons, so fascinating as this is, I'm offski. But, one last thing, my real question remains, so I refer you to the last paragraph of #61. Cheers.

Ok grokesx, so I know it's term-time again & you're intent on flicking Lsv's ears, but considering it's a 'fresh' term & Lsv's stated in 64 he's "In fact, arguing more for a respectful agnosticism more than anything else" wouldn't it be more sportsmanlike to restart play on this basis, rather than just reiterating 61.

When you say-"Are there any areas in that neck of the woods that are outside science's remit?" Could you be clearer please?

@Ryan

Who made you the schoolmaster? If you're not interested in a my posts, don't read 'em, but I'm not going to argue on the basis of what you think is sportsmanlike.

My question in 61 is still open no matter what LSV says he is arguing for, bearing in mind he claims, "There is not one thing that I have ever said on this blog which is contrary to the proper functioning of the scientific method." In my mind it is not unreasonable to explore what he means by that. I don't see him complaining, too hard.

When you say-"Are there any areas in that neck of the woods that are outside science's remit?" Could you be clearer please?

I would have thought that "you have spent time on here making arguments indistinguishable to creationist ones" would be lead us to the right area.

Anyway LSV, see you in the playground later :)

Update to 68

'"I can categorically state that I have never violated or molested a child placed in my trust, either in a private or priestly capacity," he said.'

https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-14801020

40.At 09:02 3rd Sep 2011, PeterKlaver wrote:
mscracker post 24, marieinaustin post 26,

"I'm not a supporter at this time of Michelle Bachmann, but her remarks about the recent natural disasters/earthquake are understood by most folks here to be only partly serious."

"Then she said she was speaking in jest."

That is the line her campaign team put our when Bachmnann started catching bad press for her remark. None of the reporters who were there got the impression she was kidding. It smells of transparent damage control."
***
"Partly serious" doesn't mean kidding.It means in part serious. I think she was partly serious, partly not.

Mscracker, hope you had a good Labor Day

73-

Who made you the schoolmaster? If you're not interested in a my posts, don't read 'em, but I'm not going to argue on the basis of what you think is sportsmanlike

Hokay, my feeling is, you returned from the pub last nite expecting to engage Lsv in the Scientific equivalent of Wynter Gordon's Dirty Talk. I'm not sure Lsv's dodgy ticker is up to resuming such rough play

@Ryan

What? This is me on my best behaviour. It's been ages since I mentioned logical fallacies...

grokesx (@ 61) -

Anyway, we're skirting, here. Peter K compared your stance on science to Bachman's, and you have spent time on here making arguments indistinguishable to creationist ones. Are there any areas in that neck of the woods that are outside science's remit?

It would be helpful if you - or PK - could let me know what exactly Bachmann's "stance on science" is, since I am being accused of somehow having a similar position. All I can do is shrug my shoulders until the charges against me are, as it were, "fleshed out" a bit!

So, ball in your court on that one.

@71 -

It may be that we never get a full account, no matter how much we learn, but there's a fair chance that we would be a lot closer than we would be if we accepted trite assertions like "And yet morality per se cannot be entirely subjective, since we cannot live without a moral code" and carry on as if there is nothing left to know, except from the pages of old books.

Well thank goodness we agree on something, because I am certainly not in favour (nor ever have been) of "carrying on as if there is nothing left to know, except from the pages of old books", and I am not quite sure how that follows from my comment, which you quoted (I'll try to ignore the unsubstantiated derogatory description of the comment).

So since we agree, then I am not sure how you expect me to respond!

(But like I made clear: science can "speak into" all areas. But it is not absolute. There is a difference, you know.)

76.At 16:22 6th Sep 2011, _Ryan_ wrote:
Mscracker, hope you had a good Labor Day
***
Very nice, thank you. Soggy, but nice. Hope your weekend was good, too! And non-soggy.

80, Its been pretty much the same here, infact we've hardly seen the sun this summer- just varying levels of cloud illumination lol

But like I made clear: science can "speak into" all areas. But it is not absolute. There is a difference, you know.

I don't know who is making the claim that science is absolute. Many of us will claim it is the best tool we have, but that is not the same thing at all. Absolutism is the language of the deluded, wherever they stand.

I'm interested in how you square the science friendly rhetoric on this thread with your previous arguments about, say, abiogenesis research and evolutionary theory. Are they within the remit of the scientific method or not?

grokesx (@ 82) -

I don't know who is making the claim that science is absolute.

Well, if you acknowledge that science is not absolute, then what is the basis of your criticism of my position?? I'm bemused.

I'm interested in how you square the science friendly rhetoric on this thread with your previous arguments about, say, abiogenesis research and evolutionary theory. Are they within the remit of the scientific method or not?

If a hypothesis has to be constructed within the framework of philosophical materialism in order to be "scientific" and "falsifiable", then my answer will be "no", because the scientific method has then been defined according to a preconceived philosophy (which itself is not the result of any scientific experiment). That's not science but philosophy, and it appears you would agree with my concern about this, since you have already said on this thread that "The practice of science is independent of anything the philosophers of science have to say on the matter." (post #61)

Any idea that theorises that complex systems can self-assemble without the need for intelligent input is no more scientific than the intelligence hypothesis. I am not saying that such an idea is necessarily unscientific, but it is certainly not a conclusion that can be drawn from scientific experimentation.

It amazes me, quite frankly, how anyone can suggest that the input of information into a system is contrary to science! Even Richard Dawkins has stated that "what lies at the heart of every living thing is not a fire, warm breath, nor a 'spark of life'. It is information, words, instructions..." (Blind Watchmaker). This information is an effect, which obviously has a cause or a source. The idea that "science" demands that we should be able to empirically observe that cause is absurd, considering that the scientific method allows for inference (after all, the concept of "common descent" is inferred not observed!). Therefore if the idea of an intelligent creator (i.e. 'creationism') is deemed to be "anti-science", then the same will have to be said of the idea of "common descent", since both ideas are arrived at by the same method, namely, inference.

@LSV

Well, if you acknowledge that science is not absolute, then what is the basis of your criticism of my position?? I'm bemused.

No more than I am. I began this by asking you what you understand the "proper functioning of the scientific method to be" and we somehow got into this.

because the scientific method has then been defined according to a preconceived philosophy (which itself is not the result of any scientific experiment).

We've done this to death. The methodological/philosophical naturalism distinction is not difficult to comprehend.

Therefore if the idea of an intelligent creator (i.e. 'creationism') is deemed to be "anti-science", then the same will have to be said of the idea of "common descent", since both ideas are arrived at by the same method, namely, inference.

We've done this to death, too. To re-iterate, it's the details. If you like, common descent is simply better science than mysterious intelligence. For a start, the leaps from evidence to inference are many order of magnitude apart.

grokesx -

We may indeed have done these topics to death, but I need to make clear that it was PK who actually brought up this issue on this thread by accusing me of being "anti-science". You have decided to argue his case, and I am simply defending myself. Nothing that you have said supports the accusation.

I am well aware that there are those who have persuaded themselves that science leads inexorably to atheism, and therefore that belief in God is "irrational" ("rational" defined in empirical terms, which is, of course, a huge epistemological blunder). I dissent from this view on the basis of a proper understanding of "reason".

What Michele Bachmann believes is, of course, her business and not mine.

You have decided to argue his case...

Not really, I was picking up on what you said in your reply, since it touched on many of the conversations we have had on here. Many of your arguments in the past make it clear that your idea of the scientific method is not one that many scientists would recognise, so I thought a bit of clarification was in order.

Victim of sex abuse sues school (Holy Child Primary School). The perpetrator has already been convicted of sexual offences. In this case the plaintiff was not taught by the teacher in question, and it is alleged that he was released from his class 15 minutes early most afternoons and taken to the convicted sex criminal's classroom where he was abused.

https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-14829523

LSV,

"We may indeed have done these topics to death, but I need to make clear that it was PK who actually brought up this issue on this thread by accusing me of being "anti-science". You have decided to argue his case, and I am simply defending myself."

And referring my post 59 to the moderators is also 'defending yourself'? Even when my post made it through pre-moderation without the slightest trouble and your complaint was of course rejected?

In trying once more to censor criticism of the inconsistencies in your anti-science arguing and lack of scientific knowledge, you have lost pretty much all intellectual credibility. Not even the smallest attempt on your part to answer criticisms, just attempts to make them invisible to blog readers.

Aaarggh I shouldn't be up so late, but I don't see the argument re science as quite so clear cut.
First of all Lsv stated "Well thank goodness we agree on something" in reply to Grokesx's...

It may be that we never get a full account, no matter how much we learn, but there's a fair chance that we would be a lot closer than we would be if we [] carry on as if there is nothing left to know, except from the pages of old books.

Maybe It should be acknowledged Lsv is looking to find some common ground with both PK & grokesx & that he "Is Infact, arguing more for a respectful agnosticism"

If we set aside religion (& the culture of organised religion) for one moment & view it from my perspective, Grokesx has previously shown a disinclination to recognise legitimate scientific analysis once the context is rearanged- he dismissed his own scientific beliefs with such disregard I thought he might be in need of a seeing eye donkey :p
When I first arrived on this blog, Helio stood out as having a similar outlook re science, but it's fair to say Agnostism colours my perception more than Atheism ever will. However, It has to be acknowledged at the forefront of science is a blurring of the division between quantum physics and existential philosophy. This is the best way we have to express what's happening in any natural language. I think it was Brian Cox who said "...consciousness is the programming language of the universe. We are consciousness conductors. Consciousness comes through us, emanates from us..."
And aother quote from Brian Cox "We are the cosmos made conscious. Life is the means by which the universe understands itself."
These are the views I feel sit most comfortably with my own.
The Anthropic Principle- that the Universe is in a golden age, and as such, created a way of being conscious of itself, in other words, "that the universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life"- or in another way, that "the physical universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it"
There's argument that "life does not seem to be an accidental occurrence but somehow is actually required by the universe"

To follow on Wheeler's theory of 'it from bit', that the Universe is encoded information as answers to yes & no binary questions, M.I.T. Professor Seth Lloyd says the universe is a quantum computer-

When you zap things with light to build quantum computers, you're hacking existing systems. You're hijacking the computation that's already happening in the universe, just like a hacker takes over someone else's computer.

What is the universe computing when we are not hijacking it for our own purposes?
It computes itself. It computes the flow of orange juice as you drink it, or the position of each atom in your cells.

Whether we agree with Cox, Feynman, Dirac, Einstein, Wheeler etc, one thing is clear- science is not the sole preserve of Atheism. Rejection of Atheism isn't however an argument for religion. Although I would add, the unspoken reality maybe alot of us inhabit the middle ground; the grey area between belief & unbelief, expressing our "prejudice" as a truth, looking for 'evidence' to substantiate it, to veil it in infallibilty. However, to clearly distinguish what is known from what is unknown at each stage of discovery, the only statement that gains infallibility is the one that's attained mathematical proof.

Fermanagh priest , Fr Joe McVeigh, lays into Enda Kennedy. He claims that politicians are no less blameworthy for all the paedophile scandals in the Catholic Church.

'The priest said what happened in Cloyne was the responsibility of the former bishop John Magee and monsignor Denis O'Callaghan and "cannot be blamed on the Vatican".'

https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-14834701

@90. newlach:
I read the letter & Fr. Joe doesn't give Rome a pass on Irish/British relations in the past. Which I'd never thought much about before.
Off topic, but I'm surprised that Mr. Kenny's joke years back concerning an African leader wouldn't come back to haunt his political career more.(It was one of the 1st things to come up when I googled his name online a while back)Perhaps Americans are less forgiving or more race-conscious or both? We manage to dig up dirt from our politicians' college days or earlier to use as political ammunition. It gets pretty tedious as the presidential election looms.

@Ryan

So, let me get this straight, you are sympathetic to LSV's argument for respectful agnosticism? That is, he would like us to be respectfully agnostic towards his committed Christianity. Tell you what, I'll be as respectful to it as the Bible is to non believers:

Psalm 14

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

That leaves me with a bit of wiggle room.

Grokesx has previously shown a disinclination to recognise legitimate scientific analysis once the context is rearranged

I don't know what on earth that means, but I think it must have something to do with quantum woo.

It has to be acknowledged at the forefront of science is a blurring of the division between quantum physics and existential philosophy.

No it doesn't. It has to be acknowledged that a bunch of people make a lot of speculations about fascinating areas that we don't fully understand, and since there are about 18 different interpretations of quantum mechanics, that's not going to stop any time soon. I have the greatest respect for Brian Cox as a science communicator, but I suspect some of his colleagues at CERN are tempted to tell him to Shut up and Calculate!

No Grokesx, the shift in context was so minute it wasn't challenging any principles accepted in Science or inviting doctrine or dogma in. It's just you're the equivalent of a medieval Priest who thinks he's the only one in authority to speak on the matter. Most of "woo" as you call it is published in 'Science' & 'Nature'. You smack of arrogance & hypocrisy. If you think science is discredited by the fact its mentioned on a religious blog, then perhaps you should question why your here, other than to be entertained at Lsv's expense. Maybe it's you who should be done 'half to death' rather than Lsv

@Ryan

It's always amusing when those who plead for respect, tolerance and the middle ground get going with the personal insults. For some reason I am reminded of Geoffrey Howe.

@Ryan

As for LSV, I don't think you need to be so protective, he's doing a fine job fighting homophobia on the other thread.

Grokesx, if you wanna know the truth, I've had at least 2 occasions where I thought it best not to reply to you to protect MY stance in those threads. I was taking the heat off Lsv with Natman et al long before I was aware this blog crossed into sexual areas. How naive of me.
So here goes. You state a question to Lsv like you know what buttons to push & what replies to expect in return. You treat like nothing more than a toy. He's served a purpose for you- like a hit of endorphins to make you feel good at the expense of his health. Well it's a pretty neat trick to get your hit at the cost of someone else. I don't hold much sway in your powers of deductive reasoning, you couldn't recognise an arguement for science in a different context if it smacked you in the face. You're riddled with the same sort of hypocracy demonstrated by Mcc & Theo. So don't expect me to make this experience 'fun' for you

mscracker

"I'm surprised that Mr Kenny's joke.... hasnt come back to haunt him."

Email it round your friends, post it on websites and maybe it might.

"We manage to dig up dirt..." Yip, you certainly do. What on earth posessed you to throw that little vignette in?

@97. romejellybeen:
I'm not aware of anyone in the US that might be interested but I just find it an odd cultural difference maybe. It didn't take much digging. When I first saw Mr. Kenny's name in this blog sometime ago I had never heard of him(I plead ignorance of Irish politics) & looked about online & that story popped up pretty quickly.
What I found curious, too, the articles claim he asked the media to suppress the story.Which is a bit like what folks claim Church authorities have done.Very different issues, though.But similar politics.

Ryan (@ 96) -

Thanks for your comments and I appreciate your concern. While we may have our differences on some issues, I have always thought highly of your contributions on this blog, and long may it continue.

I also appreciate your concern for my health. However, I do need to say that I do not believe that my health problems are in any way related to this blog or anything written here. I have come onto this blog very much ready for a strong debate, and I rarely take people's comments personally (although there is a limit).

I wouldn't want grokesx or anyone else to think that they had to "go easy" on me, especially in the light of my recent cardiac problems. It was not my intention to share my health issue on this blog in order to soften anyone's tone or strength of argument. In retrospect, I suppose I should have foreseen that that is how it would be viewed. I am prepard to give certain people a hard time, and therefore I expect (and deserve) it in return.

I really am doing quite well now, healthwise, and so let's assume that we can just carry on as before.

Again, I want to stress that I really appreciate your concern and your comments. So keep up the good work, Ryan!

@LSV

I must say it didn't seriously occur to me that our posts needed health warnings - I assumed your problems were due to hard living and fast women. Anyway, you're doing sterling work on the other thread.

@ Overwrought Ryan

Context is everything. Science is done in the context of a huge body of scientific knowledge built up over the centuries. Shift it away from that context, even by a tiny bit, and it becomes something else - science fiction, literature, metaphysics (and various other flavours of thinking hard and making stuff up), politics, religion, pseudo-science, new age wibbling, woo and mysticism to name a few. What it doesn't become until it is put back in its contextual box is legitimate scientific analysis.

So don't expect me to make this experience 'fun' for you.

The more overwrought you are the more fun it gets. Sorry.