Calvin at 500

Thanks for the links. Calvin is an interesting guy.

Paul Helm has published "Calvin: a Guide for the Perplexed" with T&T Clark.
A very good read for anyone with Reformed leanings is Dewey Hoitenga's "Calvin and the Will: a Critique and Corrective".

Also of note is the Arminian backlash in Evangelical writings (although "Wesleyan" would seem more accurate.) Ben Witherington's commentary on Romans, Roger Olson's "Story of Christian Theology" & "Arminian Theology", and Walls and Dongell's "Why I'm Not a Calvinist" all give a helpful balance to the Calvinistic school of thought which has dominated Evangelicalism since the 1960's.

GV

Nasty man. Good riddance to him.

Helio, you should hope to achieve in your entire lifetime a small percentage of what Calvin achieved in one year of his life.

Oh, dictatorship, murder, theft, incitement, etc. Yeah sure! There are any number of crazed monomaniacal religiots one could choose to model oneself on. Calvin would not be one I would choose.

Very interesting stuff, may not be suited to everyone's beliefs but there's no harm in "expanding the mind"

#3 - Heliopolitan - "Nasty man."

I never thought we would agree on anything, but you've hit the nail on the head here.

Calvin's doctrine of reprobation has got to rate as the most depraved idea ever to enter the mind of a human being, and I make no apologies to anyone for saying that.

LSV
You should try Hoitenga's book. It shows how Calvin went wrong on the human will and why.
GV

logica you should listen to the progrdmme! Calvin didn't originate the idea of reprobation or double predestination - he got the idea from Augustine, who got the idea from tc apostle Paul. Calvin didn't invent it.

Gus

Sorry to promote a good book, but Hoitenga shows how Calvin went beyond Augustine, in that Calvin believed that no human ever freely chooses to do a good thing.
His aim was to rule out any possibility for pride.

Thought you might be interested.

GV

I think that you'd probably like Olson as well. (Maybe you already do).

#9 - Clippo - "Calvin didn't originate the idea of reprobation or double predestination - he got the idea from Augustine, who got the idea from tc apostle Paul. Calvin didn't invent it."

I am not aware that I said that he did invent it. However it was still a doctrine he held to and championed.

The idea is repugnant irrespective of who formulated it, and so therefore I would regard Augustine in the same light as Calvin. As for the Apostle Paul, I would view him likewise if it were true that that is what he taught. But that is a matter of interpretation, and I happen not to hold to that particular interpretation of his teaching.

Furthermore, if someone - hypothetically speaking - succeeded in convincing me that the Bible genuinely promoted such an idea, then I would also regard the Bible as a thoroughly objectionable book. However, a careful reading of Scripture, which refuses to play the silly fundamentalist game of building doctrines on isolated verses ripped out of context, leads me to a completely different conclusion.

I will never believe that God has deliberately created some people with the sole intention (whether by decree or wilful neglect) of sending them to a place infinitely worse than the most vile Nazi concentration camp and treating them more ruthlessly than the most sadistic torturer - and all simply for "the glory of his judgment". No amount of trying to justify this satanic view of God by appealing to the fall - and therefore man's "just desserts" - will make any difference to my view. This is because, of course, no one chose to be born into a fallen world. Therefore no one can be justly held responsible for his alleged "original sin". Neither can anyone be held responsible for any further sin, if the option of righteousness was not offered to such a person, in order to enable that person to escape that which he was supposedly "pre-programmed" with.

This doctrine of predestination is nothing more than an attempt to spiritualise the pagan and naturalistic concept of determinism.

However, I accept that there is an idea of "predestination" in the Bible, but a careful reading of the scriptural contexts reveal that it has nothing to do with the above-mentioned heresy.

I can't imagine how much evil has resulted from the actions of those who believe that some people in this world are to be considered inherently worthless in the eyes of God: "We are the chosen people, and to hell with everyone else."

Thank God this nightmare is not true.

You can't describe predestination as a heresy when it has been taught as orthodoxy by the church for 1500 years! A heresy is not a doctrine I personally disaprove of, its a doctrine that's against orthodox teaching. Feel free to criticise predestination, mock it, oppose it as much as you like, but don't call it heretical.

PTL, there are other words you could call such doctrines, but they wouldn't get past Will's spam filter. LSV is right about reading the bible, though. When you really get into it, you find that most, if not all, of Christianity is *very* shaky indeed; more than one person has decided to become an Atheist Christian because of it. But, yes, Calvin - like many other objectionable theocrats, his intellectual accomplishments are greatly exaggerated, and he makes Jim McConnell look like a real open and accountable democrat ;-)

#13 - jovial - "You can't describe predestination as a heresy when it has been taught as orthodoxy by the church for 1500 years! A heresy is not a doctrine I personally disaprove of, its a doctrine that's against orthodox teaching. Feel free to criticise predestination, mock it, oppose it as much as you like, but don't call it heretical."

What I would like to know is this: how do you define "orthodoxy"? And which church's orthodoxy are we talking about?

If orthodoxy means that contradictory ideas (including ideas which are inherently contradictory of the "2+2=5" variety) are somehow accepted as "legitimate", then you would have to accept that there is no correlation whatsoever between "orthodoxy" and "truth". The corollary of that, of course, is that "heresy" does not necessarily imply "falsehood".

So, according to your reasoning, I can believe something to be false - and provide reasons for doing so - but I must not call it "heresy". Firstly, I would like to know why not? Or should I just say: "So what!"

If I want to describe absurd and internally contradictory ideas as "heretical" then what difference does it make if I do? We don't live in an ecclesiacratic society, you know! (I won't say "theocratic" society, because a society ruled by the true God would bear absolutely no relation to what most people associate with the word "theocratic". "Ecclesiacratic" is therefore the correct term.)

God is a God of truth. Therefore his definition of "orthodoxy" is "what is true". His definition of the opposite of "orthodoxy" - i.e. "heresy" - is "what is false".

Since the Calvinist doctrine of double predestination is internally illogical and an offence to justice, I conclude that it is false. Therefore, measured against the standard of the God of truth (the true standard of orthodoxy), it is heresy.

logica, the definition of 'heresy' is that the doctrine is a breach with the church's traditional teaching. That traditional teaching is articulated in the church's ecumenical creeds and confessions. If a doctrine is shown to be inconsistent with those creeds, it is by definition heretical.

You can't use the term heretical of doctrines you oppose or doctrines you have trouble understanding 'logically. You might have trouble understanding the doctrine of the trinity 'logically', but that doesn't make it a heretical teaching.

I refer the honorable gentlemen to the books I recommended some posts ago.

LSV

Another thread has left me mesmerized and I have therefore contributed nothing to this one, maybe that is a good thing. However I am interested in pursuing a discussion with you, and I really do mean discussion rather than the defending of positions. I am interested in hearing what you have to say as this topic most obviously vexes you. In order to assist this, might I ask you a question?

You say, (post 12) "This doctrine of predestination is nothing more than an attempt to spiritualise the pagan and naturalistic concept of determinism.

However, I accept that there is an idea of "predestination" in the Bible, but a careful reading of the scriptural contexts reveal that it has nothing to do with the above-mentioned heresy."

I am interested then, in what you think this 'idea of "predestination" in the bible' is.

Maybe in this way we might come to a better understanding of one another.

Regards, Peter.

#18 - petermorrow - "...this topic most obviously vexes you."

I remember a friend of mine - who was also a Christian - once saying to me that he couldn't understand why some people had such a problem with the idea of predestination (and by predestination he meant what is understood by the Calvinist acronym "TULIP"). At the time I just kept silent, as it was one of those situations which was not conducive to having an argument - or should I say "lively discussion". Someone else in the same fellowship, at another time, made the comment that this issue "really doesn't matter". Again I kept my mouth shut.

But thinking about those two comments has, at times, made me seriously question whether some Christians actually care about the nature of God. It's as if to say: "as long as I'm alright, I couldn't really care less about anyone else". Such a deep-seated self-obsession never ceases to amaze me.

I am afraid it is completely beyond me why any sane person can love and trust a God who deliberately contrives to create a human being with the full knowledge that there is absolutely nothing that that person can do to escape his final destiny of torture in the fires of hell. God refuses by decree to offer that person salvation, and so therefore, by default that person has to go to hell. Such a person cannot even "earn" his salvation by his own moral efforts, since God has decreed that that person should be contaminated with original sin as a result of the fall of Adam and Eve. Therefore a person who is "reprobate" - i.e. who has not been predestined to salvation - cannot avoid going to hell, and the judgement of condemnation hangs over that person's head from the moment of his conception onwards. Whichever view of predestination you hold - supralapsarianism (direct decree) or infralapsarianism (wilful neglect) - it is clear that God is the author of the reprobate person's condemnation.

So I have to say that it amazes me that there are people who are not vexed by this topic, since it directly challenges the justice, never mind the love, of God.

If the Bible teaches this form of predestination, then the Bible is a pack of lies, and no one should feel under any obligation to believe anything that is written in it. This is because there are clear statements in the Bible which refute the concept of predestined reprobation - 1 Timothy 2:4 is the most obvious example. Deuteronomy 30:19 is another example. If those Bible passages which mention predestination are to be interpreted according to "TULIP", then the Bible contradicts itself, and is therefore an absurdity.

So therefore what do we do with a passage like Romans 9, which speaks about God loving Jacob and hating Esau, and making some vessels for honour and some for dishonour? Then there seems to be an implied rebuke to those who, like me, dare to question the justice of God when faced with this concept of predestination - see Romans 9:19-24 (which actually seems to contradict God's question in Isaiah 5:3-4, concerning the justification for his judgement. Here God wants people to see that he is indeed just, and not arbitrary in executing judgement.).

Romans 9 has to be taken in context, and I just haven't got the time to go through every single point here, but I will make a few initial comments. The witness of scripture is clear that God did not "hate" Esau in an absolute sense, otherwise why would God be instrumental in bringing about reconciliation between him and his brother Jacob? Genesis 33:4 says: "But Esau ran to meet him (Jacob), and embraced him, and fell on his neck and kissed him, and they wept." Esau here is displaying forgiveness towards his brother who had double-crossed him - hardly the attitude of a reprobate eternally "hated" by God.

It is clear, therefore, that the names "Jacob" and "Esau" as used in Romans 9:13, although of course they denote real people, are to be understood in terms of attitudes displayed by these two people. God foresaw the attitude Esau would have - a willingness to sell his birthright for short-term material gain - and also of course he foresaw Jacob's determination to receive the blessing, even if his method of receiving it was dubious, to say the least. If you don't accept that explanation, and insist on the absolute predestinarian view, then it is incumbent on you to explain why God refused to forgive Esau when he tried to repent of his sin - Hebrews 12:17. The Bible makes absolutely clear that if we repent God forgives us - 1 John 1:9. So why did God not forgive Esau? It cannot be because Esau was predestined to damnation, otherwise God would be a liar, by promising to forgive those who repent. This refusal to forgive Esau concerned, not his salvation, but the specific blessing which he forfeited when he sold his birthright. In other words, the whole issue with Esau is not to do with salvation at all, but to do with something more specific at the heart of God's election of Israel as a nation.

In Romans 9 Paul explains that Israel was chosen to be the nation through which God would reveal himself to the world, but this election was on the basis of God's will, not on the basis of some "law of inheritance" which bound God's decision - i.e. Esau, being the eldest had legally to inherit the blessing. So therefore the concept of "grace" is at the heart of the election of Israel. But to then reason from that to suggest that those who are "not elect" in this sense are therefore condemned to hell, is not permissable. Why do I say that? Because Genesis 12:1-3 summarises the nature of Israel's election when God promised a nation to Abraham. In verse 3 we read: "... in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." Israel's election had the purpose of bringing blessing to all nations. The idea that Israel's election implies the reprobation of other nations is truly an appalling and sickening interpretation, and far from the intention of God.

In fact, much as I have problems at times with the Catholic Church, I do agree with the following comment in a book I have about the teaching of the current Pope. This book is "The Thought of Benedict XVI" by Aidan Nichols OP. This is what Nichols writes concerning Joseph Ratzinger's belief:


"Ratzinger's synthesis culminates in a vision of what he terms 'true universalism'. As he wrote:

'The separating-off of the limited Christian brotherhood is not the creation of some esoteric circle, but is intended to serve the whole. The Christian brotherly community does not stand against, but for the whole.' [quoted from Ratzinger's "Die christliche Bruederlichkeit" - Munich 1960]

In this view of the Church as elected for the sake of the non-elected, as the means to save the other brother who was not chosen, Ratzinger is explicitly under the influence of Karl Barth. In the Church Dogmatics, Barth had transformed Calvin's doctrine of double predestination, praedestinatio gemina, in just this fashion. Thus Barth, and here Ratzinger after him, could maintain the full, gracious reality of the Church's distinctive election, while at the same time opening wide the doors of salvation to all. For though universalism, the salvation of everyman, is not part of Christian faith, it is assuredly part of Christian hope." [pp.72-73]


Ratzinger is actually correct about election here, in my view. The election of Israel and also the Church is not intended to imply that those outside are condemned. Election is a specific calling to a life of service through which others are blessed. It's supposed to be a win-win situation, undergirded by the grace of God. This is what Romans 9 is really talking about.

People can still choose to reject the grace of God, and, as Romans 9 makes clear, God can still "use" such people for his glory, as he used Pharaoh. But this does not imply that God desires anyone to be evil - read Romans 1, which explains in verse 24 that God gives up certain people to evil, but that is only after they themselves had clearly chosen to reject God - see verses 18-23. It is frankly absurd to say that God planned that these people should be evil. A similar idea is found in 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 - God sends certain people strong delusion after they have wilfully rejected the truth. So God's actions - his "predestination", as it were - only kicks in after a free-will decision has been made to reject his grace, which was initially offered.

I've written enough for now. That's much more I could say, but that's it for now.

Of course, if there is no such blinkin' thing as god in the first place, all that is completely irrelevant.

Carry on :-)

#20 - Helio - "Of course, if there is no such blinkin' thing as god in the first place, all that is completely irrelevant."

Thank you for having the decency to use the word "if" - suggesting perhaps that you might be having some doubts??

Just like your mate Dicky Dawkins had the decency the other day on the BBC to admit he was actually an agnostic (apparently '6' on a scale of 1-10).

There's hope for you lot yet.

Here's a thought for you to mull over...

If naturalism is true then nature determines everything, including our thoughts. Therefore nature has determined that I should be a believer in God, and you an atheist. In what sense, therefore, am I "wrong" and you "right" since both our minds and thoughts have been determined by nature?

LSV

Thank you for your thoughtful comment. If I might, I would like to take a bit of time to read it again and get back to you when I can.

Helio

Now that we're all out of popcorn, let's go back to the trenches! Of course there's a God, it is He who defines our very doubt. ;-)

Not onee word about the reports of Neo-Nazi thugs in Belfast attacking about 100 Roumanians who had to take refuge in a church? Is there a disconnect with the real world here or was the story exaggerated by BBC and others? Does it sound Christian to you folks? It sounds frightenly Christian to me and all too familiar.

Marcus

Yes it's appalling, maybe William will add a new thread, not just so sure it's as simple as saying it's 'Christian' though. There's a certain irony in your remark.

#19:
Thank you for your excellent explanation of Romans 9, which many people I know use. I now have a good way to stand against them. (Of course, they'll likely fall back on their one-note verses as if one out of context verse in Proverbs proves their point.)

In regards to TULIP, the people I know would agree for the most part witht he first three parts of TULIP, but would differ over the Irresistable Grace part and Perserverance of the Saints part (In part due to Lot being mentioned as a righteous man in I Peter 2.)

As for Servetus, the people I know praise his denial of eternal sonship. (They hold to an unusual position- The Word of God was not eternally begotten and existed from all eternity. Jesus per se did not exist until his conception.) They also praise his denial of paedo-baptism. I'm not sure they are aware of his antinomianism or his denial of predestination. They would condemn Calvin for burning him at the stake, though they wouldn't do the same if he was burned for some of his other heretical ideas. (Incidentally, Servetus made a number of historical contributions to medical science. He predated Harvey in discovering circulation. (An Arab beat him to it, though...))

LSV

Okay, I'm with you on determinism.
I'm also with you on Reprobation - Paul never uses the concept of Election to talk about unbelievers.
And I think that when you've been attacking Original Sin on previous posts you've actually been attacking Reprobation.

A few quibbles -

"Whichever view of predestination you hold - supralapsarianism (direct decree) or infralapsarianism (wilful neglect) - it is clear that God is the author of the reprobate person's condemnation."
I'm not sure that you're using either term correctly. The debate there was about the logical order of the decrees. One of those "angels on the pin of a needle" debates, I think.
But neither necessitates willful neglect or direct decree. Regarding the latter the choice to reject God is an example of "agent causation". The idea is that the will follows the good that the intellect presents to it (That's how many mediaevals thought). But the choice is the agents. So God does not impose a choice.
As for "willful neglect" Adam was thought of as making a choice as a Federal Representative. He did what we all would have chosen to do, even when our wills did have the power to choose good.
I don't think that either response is adequate. But I don't that it helps to represent your opponents in the best possible light before
critiquing them.
I'm also a bit concerned that you are reading Barth into Romans 9 - which is every bit as bad as reading Calvin. I think the focus is on the covenant with Israel, not a wider thesis about the purpose of Election.
The background to the potter image in Romans 9 is Jer 18 -

"1 This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD : 2 "Go down to the potter's house, and there I will give you my message." 3 So I went down to the potter's house, and I saw him working at the wheel. 4 But the pot he was shaping from the clay was marred in his hands; so the potter formed it into another pot, shaping it as seemed best to him.
5 Then the word of the LORD came to me: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD. "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. 7 If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it."

Verses 8, 9 and 10 put a large measure of personal (and corporate) responsibility) back into Romans 9. The picture is of "rebellious" clay. Paul is simply trying to figure out why Israel has not accepted the Messiah in Romans 9. I think that you're correct in that individual salvation is not being discussed. The Essenes and Pharisees did debate Free-Will - or at least had differing views. Paul never shows any interest in the question.

We're probably in a large measure of agreement. However we do need to answer Paul Helm's challenge

"God knowingly created and sustained the person of Adolf Hitler, infallibly knowing that Auschwitz would follow, while retaining the power to cut short this devilish regime at any time. On this view, God has from all eternity been planning and purposing states of affairs with the infallible knowledge that horrendous evils will result from certain exercises of human free agency, and chooses to do nothing about it. There are of course important differences between libertarian and compatibilist theodicies. But is there much of a moral difference?"

GV

Orville

I assume that you are talking about Jehovah's Witnesses?

GV

LSV, you've clearly been in hiding :-) Dawkins (and I for that matter) is a 6 on a scale of 1-7 (not 10) - you should read the God Delusion. That does not make one an agnostic. I am an atheist, but I know that that does not mean that there is 100% certainty that there IS NO god, just as you are a theist, and you know that you cannot be certain that there IS. Agnosticism is the position that we can't tell, but I think there is plenty of evidence that we can use to inform our judgement.

Anyway,
If naturalism is true then nature determines everything, including our thoughts. Therefore nature has determined that I should be a believer in God, and you an atheist. In what sense, therefore, am I "wrong" and you "right" since both our minds and thoughts have been determined by nature?

Chaos, feedback. Determinism is not the same as predictability - the outcome of a complex purely deterministic system is generally not predictable ahead of time in the long range (ask the Calvinists, har har!). Didn't they teach you anything at complex systems analysis class in P1??

-H

How does "chance" help any more than determinism? You still aren't deciding on your thoughts. They just "ride along" on a physially dtermined system.

GV

Or a physically determined system.

those physailly determined systems are just a dispertion.

Aaaah, life returns to normal at W&T.

BTW - why is it ok to mock Dawkins, and US fundies around here, but not crazies who make nutty allegations under pseudonyms?

"BTW - why is it ok to mock Dawkins, and US fundies around here, but not crazies who make nutty allegations under pseudonyms?"

At your service. On the WW turmoil thread you can look for words like nutters/nutjobs/nutbars to get my description of some of them. For FSMs sake, they think that prayer will have real-world effects on accounts, that bible verses make a valid substitute for reasoned arguments, that god helped put up a website. Some of them fundies truly are a waste of human brain tissue.
Oh, like you said, their public discussion/slandering/threatening makes the case against churches (or at least WW) eloquently well. The dimbrains don't even realize what a present they are giving those who prefer to see the churches disappear altogether and be replaced by something better that provides a sense of community.

Now that I've clearly stated my low opinion of some of them, do you feel better?

Well, it would, if they hadn't left me with a leg to stand on.

Purpose of churches: to protect people, the way Pastor Morgan's church did on Tuesday night. If I felt that I as an atheist could be a respected and welcomed member of a church that did NOT want me to believe in their magic pixie, but wanted to engage in a real programme of civic partnership to help people practically and socially, then I would be very tempted to join and sing the hymns (back to good old William Cowper again - what a man!) with my tongue only partially in my cheek.

Graham, you have a problem with determinism. Precisely what level of control do you *think* you have over your life? When you make a decision, you generally have reasons for coming down one side or the other. Those reasons map to brain states which are influenced by perceived external factors, as well as fed-back brain states.

To what level do you *have* "free will", and how would you distinguish that from "non-free will"? What is it anyway? I would suggest that we *do* live in a deterministic universe, but it's skipping along at the cusp of chaos/complexity, which in the final analysis is as much "free will" as anything else. Please try to remember that determinism is NOT pre-destination; it is NOT pre-specification. It is unravelling; complexity, evolution. It's a beautiful thing.

I think that LSV's point was that, if you take that view of the mind then you have no reason to trust it's conclusions. But I should maybe let him spell the argument out.

To be honest, the WhiteWell thread has sucked the life out of me. I'll need a morale boost before I can rejoin battle.

Ironic really. I've been exchanging with highly educated, motivated, well read, intelligent atheists for a year here. You and Brian. Marcus when he's feeling sane. I mean PK and I bash away for months, and it doesn't wear me out.
The WhiteWell thread can shut me up in three days. The Christians were more efficient in defending skepticism than tough minded atheists.

GV

Are you('s;-) calling me and PK ineffectual?!?!

LSV is wrong about the deterministic mind, because of *feedback*. We *don't* trust the mind's conclusions (or at least we shouldn't) unless they are buttressed/programmed with data obtained from the real (deterministic) world, and proven by repeated congruence of forecasts with what actually ends up happening. The brain is a fantastic pattern-recognition machine, and we can prove it. The brain can anticipate the future behaviour of systems, and part of the way the human brain has evolved to cope with that is to manipulate abstract concepts and create overt or unconscious models of the simpler components of complex systems.

But we definitely do not and *should* not simply "trust the brain", because when we do we get nonsenses such as "Pastor McConnell knows what is best for his flock" and "I've been baptised with the Holy Spirit" and "Pigs might fly - you can't prove that they can't!", etc etc.

The thing is that we hard-nosed deterministic scientists are never happy with the theories that just come from the brain. We are a sceptical bunch. It's a good way to be. God pre-destined us to be that way ;-)

But I'm with you re the Whitewell nonsense. Stuff this. I don't want any more Doritos. Let's go get a pizza.

"I don't want any more Doritos. Let's go get a pizza."

RAmen to that! Make mine a vegetarian one please, or Marinada if they don't have veg.

Yea, pizzas sound fine, but here, was the WW thread something akin to being flatten by a herd of buffalo? Seemed exciting at the start until you realised you were caught up in the kerfuffle. It has all left me feeling rather 'white' i.e. pale and not all that well. Maybe however like cartoon characters we'll pop up back to normal and I'll get my head round this thread. I have a feeling I'm going to be in the minority on this one!

Helio, and I don't really want to get into it much, I have enough to think about with LSV, but are you basically saying that we are living in (existence) and responding to based on experience (free will) a self existent (determined) beautiful, unravelling and in the long term unpredictable universe so we might as well 'belt up', glean what knowledge we can and enjoy the ride?

Maybe you're not, I'm tired and I only scanned your posts.

Ok, but the checks are all pre-determined also. So whatever is responsible for the structure of the brain needs to have tuned it into Truth. Which is odd. Why should nervous systems that want to survive and reproduce give a fig for logic?

Second, we seem to require something like Thomas Nagel's "Autonomy Assumption": people have, to greater or lesser degrees, a capacity for reasoning that are not themselves significantly shaped by specific evolutionarily given tendencies, but instead follow independent norms appropriate to the pursuits in question. To reject this assumption risks self-defeat: for if we lack the relevant intellectual autonomy across the board, then even the biologist's beliefs about evolutionary biology and its implications would just be attributable to such biological causes, rather than to good reasons.

That's all I can manage for now.

GV

Oh, here, we're talking about Pizza? Pizza's are good. Italians made 'em and they gave us the Renaissance. Pulled their weight have the Italians, as Al Murray would say.

Well, PeterM and GV, you are very welcome to come to the next meal out that we bad atheists have from time to time, and that PeterH has attended, and we've been grateful for his company :-)

Graham, watch you don't slip into fallacy land - NS could have given us brains that *didn't* do logic (after all, most species have such brains), but we've got ones that do, and it means we can manipulate the real world in very definite ways and achieve very specific results. Quite why evolution a/ hit on this, and b/ took so long to hit on this, are interesting questions, but the fact THAT the human brain *can* do objective proper truthful logic is simply there as a fact, and it has been of such great benefit to our species that we risk wiping ourselves out. You philosophy chappies need to lighten up a bit and learn to start from where you *are* :-)

Now, Will and others - what do we all think we should be *doing* to help our Romanian neighbours, and all our neighbours in distress? I don't want to be sitting around here just chawing the fat with the lads, fun though that is. People need help, and society needs changed. Ideas?

Sorry - wrong post. This one's about that tube Calvin, innit? [Haven't listened to the radio broadcast yet!! How inappropriate is that?]

#36 - Helio - "LSV is wrong about the deterministic mind, because of *feedback*."

Let me assume - purely for the sake of argument - that the philosophy which undergirds atheism - i.e. naturalism - is true (even this assumption itself is self-contradictory because of the meaninglessness of the word "true" within that philosophy, but I will let that pass for now). The entirety of reality is a closed system of matter and energy obeying the laws of physics. Those laws "determine" that which matter and energy do.

All systems which exist are created by nature without the influence of any reality above, beyond or outside nature, since such an influence does not exist. Therefore all beliefs are the product of matter obeying the laws of nature. Every thought, every opinion, every feeling and every sensation is reducible to matter / energy operating according to the laws of nature.

If this is true then my belief that your worldview is false is also determined by nature, and likewise your belief that I am deluded is also determined by those very same laws of nature. We have one thing in common - our beliefs spring from the same source, and, strictly speaking, we cannot help what we believe, since our beliefs are determined by nature.

Now, if this is true, then in what sense can we talk about "right" and "wrong", "truth" and "falsehood"? Define the concept of truth, please. You say that I am wrong, but by saying that, you are contradicting your own worldview, since the word "wrong" implies that there exists an independent standard of truth by which to judge my views, and by which to judge that which is simply the result of the operation of physical laws. But my views, according to your belief system, are nothing more than the output of the same laws which have determined your beliefs. Can you say, for instance, that "gravity is untrue when it functions as gravity", or that "the second law of thermodynamics is false when it simply does its job" etc? Because that is what you are saying within your system of belief, when you try to impose value or truth judgements on other people's beliefs.

Now, you may then say that, "of course we can know what is true and false simply by observing nature, and believing in the external reality of events which are reinforced through repeated experience - thus our brains simply recognise patterns". But this is epistemologically naive. Pattern recognition is based on a process of logical thought which precedes the organising of a series of sense perceptions into patterns. A series of sensations in a brain can only be organised into patterns if those sensations are fed into a preexisting system of logical thought. Saying that the sensations themselves can create the system by which those same sensations can be intrepreted, is as nonsensical as saying that the electricity flowing through my computer as I write this actually creates and structures the hardware by which that same power is directed and put to good use! It's a circular argument.

The primacy of reason above nature is true of the whole scientific endeavour. We are constantly deluded into thinking that "science" somehow delivers "truth". If someone wants to get a little thrill out of writing a book with the word "delusion" in the title, it would be more intellectually honest to write one called "The Science Delusion" - debunking the idea that the empirical sciences give us direct access to knowledge. The sciences do no such thing, as scientific thought is subservient to logical inference. And logic itself cannot be discovered to be "true" on the basis of empirical evidence. There is nothing in our sense perception of nature which tells us that "logic is valid". Logical thought is brought to bear on empirical data, not vice versa. Of course, empirical experimentation can confirm the validity of a hypothesis, but all that proves is that the laws of nature conform to the laws of thought. It doesn't prove that the laws of nature determine the laws of thought.

But because thought is such an everyday phenomenon, we tend to take it for granted and use it to promote philosophies in which thought itself has no validity. Here's a simple example. A popular phrase so loved by the common-or-garden atheist is "seeing is believing". What I find so amusing is that a person who says that has actually contradicted himself. Why? Because he is saying, on the one hand, that the concept "seeing is believing" is true, and, on the other, that something can only be true if it can be seen. If something has to be seen in order to be believed to be true, and if the thought "seeing is believing" is true, then that thought itself must be something I can see! But of course the concept "seeing is believing" cannot be seen (or discerned by any of the other senses) because it is an abstract thought. It is a concept not a lump of matter. Therefore the use of such a phrase - a popular encapsulation of empiricist epistemology on which naturalism depends - is self-contradictory.

The consistent naturalist actually cannot say anything, since all his thoughts are merely subjective sensations within his material brain. He will protest of course and say, "but knowledge is a fact of life". Yes, it is, because it depends on a reality above and outside nature. The reality of knowledge (and the concepts of "truth" and "falsehood") bears witness to the fact that naturalism is untrue. It is evidence that supports my worldview, not yours.

Finally, what about morality? Any decent person would be shocked by the recent events in Belfast. But if naturalism is true then why should we be? Those racists are only behaving as nature determines them to behave. In what sense therefore, according to your philosophy, are they doing anything "wrong"?

No, they are actually a small set of Baptists. (They would agree with JW's about religious holidays (though not birthdays or national holidays, thank God!) but not much else. They would certainly differ with the JW's over the Trinity, salvation, Christology, biblical translations, blood transfusions (thank God again- I got a blood transfusion when I was a few days old), eschatology, Hell (Oddly enough, atheists would have no problems with the JW's annihilationist view.), and a great deal of other things.))

On another topic (Dawkins), given his dogmatic statements on numerous topics (even on matters of biology that can be debated without any reference to religion), it's clear he's no agnostic. (Incidentally, has anyone here read Robert Anton Wilson? He was an American who lived in Ireland for a time and declared himself a model agnostic, saying at one point, "I do not believe in anything." He was interested in sociobiolgy, which Dawkins would appreciate, but was even more hostile and sarcastic towards what he called "fundamentalist materialists" than fundamentalist religionists. However, his personal religious views were rather unusual, to say the least.)

Oh god, LSV, so much nutty goodness in there, you should put on a brown jacket and call yourself Mr Snickers. Where to start, eh? We've covered a lot of this previously, and I'm not sure about going back there, but perhaps a couple of words about your confusion re naturalism are due.

In science we do not wet our panties over epistemology, at least not until we have lots and lots of beers in (or until we retire and go off the rails). You make a mistake of assuming that a scientist starts out with a core basic philosophy, and then has to derive a bottom-up description of how each phenomenon fits within that system. Don't feel bad - a lot of very eminent (yet up-themselves and not-as-smart-as-they-think-they-are) philosophers have come to grief on this, and sadly it has put a lot of people off science.

Where you start in science is NOT at the Beginning of All Things, but Where You Are Now. And we look at where we are now, and we look up, down, and all around, and seek to understand what we see. When we come up with potential proximal explanations for what we see, we test those explanations against both natural data and cunning contrivances that we set up to control the variables and standardise our data-gathering.

We break the problems up into little black boxes, and analyse the outputs of those black boxes in response to various inputs. We seek to open the black boxes, in the full knowledge that what we will find therein will be *more* black boxes, interconnected in different ways. We repeat this process over and over again, digging deeper and deeper, more and more distal, and figuring out more and more about How Stuff Works.

We extend the same process out to the Big Scale that we extend down to the Small Scale, and we fill in the gaps as we go. This approach has been astoundingly successful, you will surely agree.

At NO POINT do I have to assume that there is no god or gods - I just take that as the most likely position, and I'm more than happy to revise that opinion if one shows up. My METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM should not be confused in your adorable little head with a strident PHILOSOPHICAL NATURALISM (although I do take that position as above; it doesn't affect my science, despite being entirely concordant with it).

So I am very happy to sit within my little expanding envelope, speaking about things that we can speak about, and declaring as nonsense what is clearly beyond the envelope, such as the prattlings of priests and preachers and prophets about "gods" and the like - not because I know that such magic space pixies definitively do not exist, but because I *do* know that you and the pixologists *don't* know, and I know the sorts of mental mistakes that make you think that you do.

It's not that hard.

As for morality, it's also adorable that you bring that up, because we've ridden that donkey (sorry Bernie!) to death too. Morality is something people (homo sapiens, although our chimp cousins seem to do it too) do; we attach moral values to things as an aid to making decisions in a social context, just like we make a Highway Code to help us stay safe on the roads. It is horizontal - there is no need for a magic space pixie to explain why we *do* morality, nor what things we consider moral. You behave morally for precisely the same reasons I do and Will does and PK does.

Yes, I *know* you think you are being very philosophically adept, but while this stuff may keep philosophers up all night, scientists in general just get on with the job in hand, and we fill in the blanks as we go along. Armchairs are nice and comfy, but every now and then you need to get up, get out, and get your brain dirrrty.

-H

Helio

Would you just quit please. Every time I go to respond (in a very holy and earnest way you understand) to LSV, you pop up with a comment which make me wet my pants. Look, you are the funniest guy on here but would you please stop distracting me with your humour, the WW thread has already pushed me closer to the edge than I've ever been before, and boy I've been close!!

Actually, you're getting in the way of my free will! :-)

Peter, if you understood Jack squiggly about determinism and predestination and defenestration, you would know that I can't help it - it Was Ordained... ;-)

Waiter! New pants please!

Night all :-)

LSV

Sorry for taking so long getting a reply written. We could bat theological positions back and forth to no avail so I'd prefer we tried to understand one another. Here goes.

I think Graham's earlier comment about Calvin and his aim being to rule out any possibility for pride is helpful in that it suggests that often our concern in framing theology is to protect certain aspects of God's character as they are described biblically. If I've read you right this is a concern of yours, that God "wants all men to be saved." All of this is perfectly understandable; maybe one of the things we a Christians do is to emphasize certain aspects of God's character at the expense of another (I'm speaking generally).

I wonder if it is also possible that the version of 'Calvinism' you describe is somewhat distorted, more akin to what is called hyper Calvinism or an extreme supralapsarianism? A little like me asking a while back if you were a Universalist, maybe, maybe not. Your description seems to suggest that Calvinists (really, we're all just Christians) think that God actively works sin into the lives of some, I most certainly do not see things that way. Does God punish a person for what God does? I think not. Is God responsible for sin? No. And I would suggest that what you seem to be outlining isn't the common reformed view of predestination.

I'm also wondering about your comments relating to Clavinism and pride, what you described as, "It's as if to say: 'as long as I'm alright, I couldn't really care less about anyone else'. Such a deep-seated self-obsession never ceases to amaze me." But the interesting thing is, and this relates to Graham's comment, I don't see things that way, in fact, if anything, I make no presumptions at all about the certainty of my salvation based either on the assumption that I am 'chosen', or the assumption that I am sincere in my repentance. You see I actively reject the grace of God every day, I reject it more often that I am grateful for it. I do the most hypocritical things in the presence of God, at times I hate him, where does that leave me? Is salvation only for the sincere and the repentant? Is it like a sermon I heard online a while ago, preached by a Presbyterian(!) entitled "No Repentance. No Mercy."?

#49

Thanks, Peter, for your comment.

I must admit our friend, the court jester (a.k.a. heliopolitan), jingled his bells and stomped around in his pointy shoes a bit too garishly for my liking yesterday. In some ways I suppose such tomfoolery is really an admission of defeat on his part, but I am not sure whether to laugh, cry or just let out a protracted yawn. I think the latter option is the best prescription.

Still I suppose we need these jokers in the pack to keep us on our toes at times.

I have avoided the long thread that you mentioned had exercised you somewhat, since, living in southern England I am not familiar with that particular church. I did, however, have a short peek today, and I am glad that that thread has seemingly burnt out, and therefore I was saved from having to respond to NotAshamed116's lopsided interpretation of the Bible. Frankly, if Christian theology really states that we all deserve to burn in hell forever simply because we have been born into a world none of us chose to be born into, then I can thoroughly understand why some people are attracted to atheism.

I interpret the Bible differently, and I try to give reasons why I understand it in the way that I do. It may not be palatable to some people, and I certainly don't have all the answers.

I don't have much energy left today to say much more than that, so till next time...

LSV, I'm glad I made you laugh. However, in your mellifluous mirth please do not lose my point - your clumsy pseudo-philosophical assault on naturalism blew up in your face. You would do well to understand a little bit more about what you criticise, rather than simply regurgitate Swinburnian hair balls. Maybe I was a tad over-aggressive, but we've seen all that basis-for-rationalism nonsense before, and the "argument from morality" was a rather predictable cherry on top of the whole sorry mess. It was lame, me old china. Go back and read my comment.

Sorry mate, can't help what I think. It's the atoms, you understand. They made me do it...

Flippin' Big Bang. Never thought it was configured quite right! Tsskkk!

Ah, LSV, sorry for biting your head off, old mucker. It's all sunshine in my little world... :-)

Mind you, you chappies need to do a bit of homework and understand the difference between "pre-determined" and "deterministic". There are only 2 ways that a hypothetical "god" could know what is going to happen in the future: 1. FORCE the system to behave according to its whimsical plan, or 2. SIMULATE it. In our universe, I would suggest that 2 is impossible, even for a hypothetical uberpixie, and in any event, since the simulation would be mathematically isomorphic with the system under analysis, there would be no difference perceived at our level, so "we" would already have lived it in the simulation ahead of time - in effect, it would just be re-running the same programme. Biggo dealo.

So Calvinism fails on just so many levels, like all sorts of ancient quack notions. Quite why he should be regarded as a great thinker is not clear - nowadays we would just call him out as a nutjob. But then nutjobs do occasionally rise to high office, whereupon they can dispense the fruits of their insanity on an unsuspecting populace.

We extend the same process out to the Big Scale that we extend down to the Small Scale, and we fill in the gaps as we go. This approach has been astoundingly successful, you will surely agree.

Helio - Post 46. "astoundingly successful" is a bold claim in the light of the overwhelming ignorance and confusion that currently exists. I think that science (in its various branches) is a noble pursuit but the evidence would not lead me to describe the outcome as you have.

What do we know? I live in a Universe (or is it really a multiverse) that is expanding at an accelerating rate and what we observe doesn't fit with what we think we know. The Omega value is observed to be different than it theoretically should be. Hyperacceleration should have ripped the universe apart and quantum field theory leads us to understand that vacuum energy has a mismatch between the theoretical value and the measured value in the order of 120 zeroes (a trillion has 12 zeroes). 96% of the mass of our universe is made up of stuff that we have never observed (we choose to label it dark matter and dark energy)and these are particles and forces unknown to science. What we observe questions Newtonian laws (either there is something wrong with gravity or there is much more matter than we are currently aware of) but we don't want to mess with them because we don't know where we are going. The 23rd Solvay Conference was far from convinced that String Theory solves the problems between Quantum Theory and Eintein's Relativity.

Pioneer 10 & 11, launched by NASA in the 1970's were explicitly used to test Newton's law but the observations are not encouraging. Their relative trajectories (they are over 8 billion miles away)give us data that does not support Newton! We don't know where gravity comes from and we don't know why it has the strength it does but we find security in the constants that help us at least explain where we are (as you pointed out). Except now the constancy of the constants are being questioned through the process of observation and empirical data! Is "alpha" constant and is "mu" constant? Not very exciting for people reading a blog on Calvin but massive for any intelligent explanation of where we are. Webb has done much work on this and the data speaks for itself. Read Feynman on the mathematics in quantum electrodynamics and you'll get an interesting insight to the certainty that operates on what you call the "Big Scale"!

What do we know on the Small Scale? We cannot explain how a cell got a nucleus. We know that eukaryote organisms have molecules that are put together in such a way that the results defy explanation by any theory. We struggle desperately to describe the fundamental difference between stuff that is in an alive state and stuff that is not in an alive state. Does science have a standard definition of what life is? Death is a subject where science is also ignorant. There is no explanation for the origin of senesence that satisfies evolution. Natural selection does not allow group selection and this therefore, rules out many of the suggested possibilities. Sex is a mystery to science as well. Sex as a reproductive strategy within the evolutionary paradigm appears to lend itself better to extinction than survival. Dawkins has suggested that he might one day write a book on the subject because no one else has satisfactorily explained it.

Obviously this post could go on and on. Nesbitt & Wilson's research indicates that the idea of rational decision making is self-delusion and the concept of free will has no scientific explanation. Science cannot explain why diazepam only works for people who know they are taking it and it is unable to explain what effect the chemical constituents of a drug have on the biochemistry of our bodies.

It seems to me that on the Big Scale and the Small Scale that the more we research the greater the gaps in our knowledge become, though undoubtedly we gain additional insight and understanding. However, I think the term "astoundingly successful" suggests science knows and can explain much more than in reality it can.

Grammar, "astoundingly successful" is exactly what it is, because we can at least then get a handle on some of the stuff we do not know - and there is stacks of that. But how do you think we *can* get the answers to ANY of the questions you highlight? That's right - good old science. We peel back the layers, and of course we find more stuff beneath - that is part of the thrill and success of the overall paradigm. If we stick with ancient myths, we don't even get as far as the start line.

You have a couple of mistakes there, but we don't need to go into them to make the general point (although we can if you like). Science is not just the body of knowledge, it is the process. We know a LOT more than we did, even 50 years ago, and even the instances that you're right about prove my point.

Astoundingly successful? You betcha, and it just keeps getting better! Now is a brilliant time to be a scientist. I can imagine that being a theologian must suck a bit, however.

Helio, if "astoundingly successful" describes the excitement of the process and the depths that are to be plumbed then I fully understand your point. I had assumed it related to "we look at where we are now, and we look up, down, and all around, and seek to understand what we see" and right now we don't understand and in certain scientific disciplines we don't even know where to start looking.

BTW Helio, your either revisionist in your history or else ignorant of the pioneering scientists, whose commitment to "ancient myths" drove their research way past the starting line and whose shoulders we now stand on in our ongoing pursuit of understanding.

However, I realise I am now way off topic for this thread!

Grammar, no, you're not off the thread; you simply don't understand the process. The commitment of the pioneering scientists was not to ancient myths, but the quest for knowledge. The myths were the *starting points*, but everyone has to start somewhere. Muslim scientists in the 12th century started with their silly myths too. The myths have been debunked, but the principle of peeling back layer after layer goes on, and "astoundingly successful" seems to sum it up pretty well. There are indeed depths to be plumbed, and that's why we still do it. But the depths we have *already* plumbed are spectacular, and your last couple of posts seem (forgive me if I have misrepresented you) rather petty and superficial.

In the last 200 years we have uncovered amazing evidence of the great antiquity and size of the universe, our own evolutionary ancestry, evolution itself, genetics - the fundamental basis for biology, the presence of planets around other stars, the presence of other *galaxies*, the atom, quarks, neutrinos, harnessed electricity, gone to the moon & sent probes to Mars, eradicated smallpox, etc etc etc.

This is something to be celebrated. It is not a gift from some notional space pixie, but the result of honest people putting in real dedicated work. The fact that much more remains to be discovered is excellent (keeps me in a job, I suppose), but that should not stop us celebrating what we have achieved. If that makes some people think that we cast an eye of derision towards pillocks like Calvin and creationists and other religious fundamentalists, then, yeah, we do. And we have a right to. We can't disprove the notion that a space pixie lurks inside one of the black boxes as-yet unopened, but there is no reason to think that there is, nor should we give any credence to moaning minnies who harp on that boring point. Science *works*, baby. Get over it.

#58 - Heliopolitan -

When I bother to read your posts I do wonder why you feel the need to keep visiting this blog to pour out all your insulting drivel about "space pixies" etc. It is very boring and childish.

I find you incredibly immature, and ill-informed, to be honest. One has to ask the question why some atheists are so utterly fixated on religion. It's not as though "scientific atheism" really works anyway - look at Stalin's Russia or Hoxha's Albania, as it was - "the world's first atheist state", which atheism turned into the poorest country in Europe. And, of course, we have the great atheist paradise called North Korea. Perhaps you'd like to go and live there?

But, I know what people like you say: "That's the wrong kind of atheism". Ha ha! How ridiculous. When "religion" causes problems in the world, then that proves that ALL religion is dodgy, but the same method of falsification is not applied to your philosophy. Such wonderful logic, don't you think?

Anyone with any kind of intelligence or intellectual integrity can work out that science only deals with the study of nature, but that human life involves far more than that. There are such things as meaning, purpose, significance, mind, reason, thought, consciousness, values, morals etc. The idea that the study of the natural sciences obviate the need for other areas of study is, frankly, naive at best and downright idiotic at worst. And the idea that these things (meaning, purpose etc) should simply be explained by natural means is not a scientific idea, but a philosophical one - attempting to force reality into a naturalistic straitjacket. This, of course, leads to the kind of bigotry you have been displaying.

You've already as good as admitted that you don't understand epistemology, so you have no right to start talking about "truth" and no right to bully and insult people who see life differently from you.

And, grammarsgonetopot, I think you've made a perfectly valid point. Well done.

Hmmm, rating how well 'scientific atheism' works by the economic performance of Albania.....I think I've heard more sensible thoughts involving Albania in the movie 'Wag the dog'.:)

Helio, do you have any idea from where LSV gets this crazy notion that for an atheist purpose in life must be informed by the study of nature? Or that that does away with the need for studying anything else? Doesn't work that way for me. For you?

I do hope you keep up the 'bigotry' and 'bullying' as LSV calls it, Helio. LSV could learn so much from it. And given that he now starts playing the 'you are so nasty' card, he certainly has a lot to learn, I think. Because complaints about the tone of a debate are hardly ever an indication of the complainer having good arguments. Usually it's a sign of lacking substance when the focus is shifted to complaining about the tone.

Glad to see that Calvin's Quincentenary is being considered on this blog. Can i let the readers of this blog and all those interested in Calvin particular that there is a special Calvin Conference this coming weekend in Mount Merrion Free Presbyterian Church, Sat@7:30pm - Mon 8:00pm. Sun 11:00am and 7:00pm. 27th June-29th June 2009.


The conference will be dealing with Calvin's life, conversion and influence on the 21st Century Christian. Everyone will be most welcome. There will be a Calvin Exhibition, bookstall and supper served each night.

The Conference Speaker will be Timothy Nelson. Minute Secretary of the Ulster Presbytery. Rev. Nelson lectures in NT Greek and is a gifted conference speaker.

Look forward to seeing you there...all who are interested.

For more details...email Rev. Paul Thompson on [email protected]

Calvin's overwhelming ambition was to live for the glory of God...he saw himself as a guardian of God's glory! What an aim!!

Thanks Paul

Helio: my reference to being off topic was in the light of the fact that this thread is meant to be about Calvin. It did not reflect some insecurity I have about my understanding of the scientific process which I understand very well. Thank you for your patronising comment though!

Your response makes my point very well. You have not explained any of the issues I raised in my original post (nor did I expect you to) you have simply listed some things that we now see (a point I specifically acknowledged) but you stated that "we seek to understand what we see" and I am suggesting we don't understand it very well at all. It is neither superficial nor petty to draw attention to the fact that we have evidence that challenges known laws, questions the constants and is contrary to established theories.

If people understood how fundamental "alpha" (derived by multiplying the charge of an electron by itself dividing it by "h" dividing that by the speed of light and multiplying the result by 2) is to the way we do science they would appreciate that it is not at all petty if this is not constant. It would be utterly superficial to say that science will understand it all one day. Some scientists left the 23rd Solvay Conference (these are not lightweights suggesting that we shouldn't even try to pursue an understanding of our Universe

My apologies: I must have hit the post button before I had finished and the blog did not recognize my "pi" symbol that should have followed the number two five lines from the end.

I was saying that many from The 23rd Solvay are saying there is no point in trying to understand the characteristics of the universe as they simply are the way they are. They do not have confidence that science will be able to explain and believe it would be a waste of time to try.

It is superficial to suggest that the scientific process is an open pursuit of knowledge and understanding that pursues the evidence wherever it leads. The prevailing consensus can silence, sabotage and suppress evidence. Julian Schwinger (Nobel Laureate and one of the greatest Physicists of the 20th Century) was scathing in his attack of this process as he pursued research in a particular field. Pons, Fleischman, Mallove and Miles had their respective careers ruined by the process, yet now in that very area the Department of Energy is recommending new research projects be undertaken. The scientific process prides itself on consensus and peer review but that consensus has often been an obstacle and not an aid to new understanding.

Writing grant applications is fundamental to the scientific process but this in itself determines what are acceptable areas of research and all sorts of politics can be involved. The pressure to demonstrate that funders money has been well spent and that there is worthwhile further research to be funded can effect the way results are published.

I would not describe the process as "astoundingly successful" and I have tried to make coherent arguments to support this. Rhetoric will dismiss this as superficial and petty but it is a different matter to demonstrate that I am wrong by reasoned argument.

On the subject of space pixies - are these the extra-terrestial, super-intellectual life forms that Richard Dawkins says "very probably" exist on other planets? He has of course admitted that he has absolutely no empirical evidence to support that view! Now that is great faith!

LSV & Grandpasonthepot, the comments about "space pixies" are SUPPOSED to be insulting - it is a pathetic insult to the intelligence to suggest that there is some sort of goddy thing out there that craves our worship and pulled off a childish stunt such as the resurrection, and it really doesn't matter that some nominally "intelligent" punters can be wheeled out to support the absurd notion; it doesn't change the character of the belief - it is precisely equivalent to belief in fairies and sprites. The emperor has no clothes, laddies.

Gramps, you accuse me of hyperbole in suggesting that science has been "astoundingly successful", yet you engage in the most ridiculous miscasting of the cosmological existential Zeitgeist by your references to the Solvay conference, as if there is some great rending of clothes going on in the physics community. I actually KNOW some of these people, and their view is that it's one of the most exciting times to be doing science - there is nothing more they *love* than ripping theories (including Newton, Relativity, Strings, Branes) to utter *shreds* and seeing what actually works. It's called *science*. Pons & Fleischman (so glad you brought them up - I attended a talk by Fleischman a number of years back, and found him most entertaining actually) got it *wrong*; that does not invalidate Cold Fusion per se, but it *does* invalidate Pons & Fleischman(n?). They ruined their own careers, gramps. Even if someone gets CF to work, P&F are not exonerated. Toughski.

LSV, you accused me of not answering your trite criticisms. Well, since you threw them irrelevantly into the mix anyway, I'm not sure what you wanted me to do with them. I just wanted to show that your casting of the scientific view was bonkers. Theism does not get you off the existential hook, but I don't even *care* about that. Your apparent inability to distinguish between the methodological naturalism appropriate in science (after all, how else are we *supposed* to detect pixies?!?) and a deep philosophical naturalism about the way things *have* to be marks you as a/ a bit of a twit, and b/ someone who has picked up all they know about epistemology from some bird-brain theological writings, rather than from anyone who has actually engaged with the topic.

"science only deals with the study of nature, but that human life involves far more than that." Well duh. But what on earth gives you the idea that space pixies get you out of that rut? They don't.

Don't expect me to defend North Korea. Don't expect me to defend Stalin's Russia. I am a Freethinker, and they make me as sick as Calvin's dictatorial Geneva - "Guardian of God's Glory" - what a blasphemy! And don't even *think* you can distort Richard Dawkins and fling it back at me - you chappies have neither the intellect nor the integrity to deal with these issues, so if you would like to crawl back to your pews to soak up some more instructions from your imaginary Big Brother, on you go. I've heard all this before.

I just feel that if you are going to accuse me of being condescending, and of portraying your worldview as being juvenile pseudo-intellectual piffle, then it would be wrong of me to disappoint you. I'm normally rather polite, as Graham and Peter would undoubtedly testify (hi chaps!), but they at least deserve some respect because they have given these things some thought, rather than spewing out second hand drivel.

Right. Cool wet grass; cool wet grass. Count to 10...

#64 - Helio -

What an impressive stream of vitriol.

Before I check out of this pointless thread I will make four points:

1. If you're upset, just remember you are the one who started it with your insults. So nice guy you may be, but if you throw stones, don't be surprised if you get a few thrown back at you.

2. I've met some mature and reasonable atheists, sceptics and opponents of Christianity over the years, with whom I've engaged in sensible and respectful conversation. They put you to shame, frankly.

3. You have still failed to produce a satisfactory answer to my question about the validity of reason within a naturalistic system. I assume that is because you can't.

4. If you despise tyrants like Calvin et al, then why don't you think hard about your own closed-mindedness.

Others reading this are mature enough to make up their own minds about these issues, and I don't think a serious seeker of the truth is terribly impressed by a stream of insults.

Don't bother to reply, because I won't be checking.

Over and out.

Oh dear. LSV has run away. Perhaps a to-the-point approach does not gel with the congenial tummy-rubbing and chin-stroking that he likes to engage in. That's a shame - in science we have to put up with much worse than this; perhaps the world of "philosophy" is a gentler, happier place, where twits are given due deference, and the greatest fools are accorded a level of acceptance above their station. Ho hum.

I wouldn't even *mind*, but all I was doing was a bit of terminological re-shuffling - standard philosophical technique - and he goes and *takes offence*?!? My goodness - how can anyone have the raw arrogance to be offended *on behalf of god*? And then accusing me of not defending the validity of reason within a naturalistic system when the validity of reason is not defensible within a *non*-naturalistic system! What planet is LSV on?

And thus it turns out that I'm one of those "nasty atheists" - quite unlike the "nice atheists" who inhabit whatever social circles LSV has his licence for.

Peters & Graham - what did I do? Where did I go wrong in my attempts to cultivate this rare flower? I think his moniker is a bit of a misnomer though. When LSV went to McVanitas, he must have told 'em: "Supersize me!"

I think I need a lie down.

"Peters & Graham - what did I do?"

Don't worry, it was predestined.

Ka-boom tish!!

;-)

Helio: Chappies?, laddies?, Gramps? - sorry do you have to be male to post here? I'll try to avoid any crisis of identity as I sift through the intellectual genius expressed in your response.

I did not accuse you of hyperbole - I disagreed with your statement. You were seeking to "understand what we see", filling "the gaps in our knowledge" and seeing "how stuff works" and that had been "astoundingly successful". Now you are suggesting that science loves ripping theories to shreds to see what works (and everything seems up for grabs). I would suggest they only rip to shreds what doesn't work and they are still struggling to advance answers in specific areas. Before you wet your panties, that is not a criticism of science but an acknowledgement of the process.

You pointed out that "astoundingly successful" was not about the outcome but the process and I suggested that the process has significant flaws and I tried to identify some. Still no accusation of hyperbole. Your version of Fleischmann & Pons - they were wrong and any advance in CF will have nothing to do with them! I don't think you accurately reflect the scientific process. Is it as simple as "right" and "wrong" or do we not learn from the efforts, insights and mistakes of others?

However, your dismissive stance does not do justice to the facts. Julian Schwinger, Nobel Laureate 1965, first winner of the Einstein Prize, winner of the National Science Medal, regarded as one of the most prolific graduate advisors in physics (4 of his students won Nobel prizes) sought out Fleischmann & Pons to discuss their research and he then sought to build on it. He wrote 8 theory papers and eventually resigned from the APS because of their refusal to publish. His conclusion, "The pressure for conformity is enormous. I have experienced it in editors rejection of submitted papers, based on venomous criticism of anonymous referees. The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship will be the death of science."

Heliopolitan vs Schwinger - hmmmm? Answers on a postcard please...

I used the account not to condemn science but to demonstrate that the process is flawed. Fleischmann was pressed by Utah to publish before he was ready (patents and the possibility of mega bucks seem to have clouded good judgement). F&P asked that others would avoid seeking to replicate their results until they had a chance to publish fully but they were ignored because of competition, commerce and kudos. MIT manipulated their report and Mallove resigned in protest. Mallove did not share your view of the process, "many modern scientists are filled with catastrophic hubris; they have become in many ways mere technicians of science, and guardians of what amounts to a pernicious Holy Writ. Dont bother me with the experimental evidence, my theory can tell me what is possible and what is not!". There is of course a world of difference between the "technicians of science" and those who are really pushing the envelope!

Speaking of which - I think I was entirely accurate in my reporting of Solvay. Many of those present do not believe that there is any point in trying to explain the characteristics of our universe and others think the brick wall represents an incredibly exciting opportunity. It is being spoken of as a potential "paradigm shift". However, neither can explain why things are as they are and that was exactly my point. Why did I make it? Because lots of people think that science is on the edge of being able to explain everything when in reality it can explain very little and some scientists are quite adept at overstatement. I think it was Popper (one of them up-themselves philosophers that you are so into) that described science as "the art of systematic oversimplification".

And so to space pixies:
Heliopolitan, "We can't disprove the notion that a space pixie lurks inside one of the black boxes as-yet unopened, but there is no reason to think that there is"

Richard Dawkins, "Whether we ever get to know them or not, there are very probably alien civilisations that are superhuman, to the point of being god-like in ways that exceed anything a theologian could possibly imagine." page 72, The God Delusion

Heliopolitan vs Dawkins - hmmm? Answers on a postcard please...

Sorry - grandma then. It is not *me* vs Schwinger or Dawkins or Fleischman(n?). It is up to science to explain the data, and you will find plenty of scientists who argue that Schwinger got certain things wrong (his explanations for sonoluminescence, for example). Yeah, you're trivially correct in that as we open the black boxes we find more black boxes that we cannot yet explain, but there is absolutely NO reason to think we have reached the end of science's explanatory power (as a process or as a body of knowledge) - rather, the ONLY way we will make progress is by science. If you have a better plan, let's be hearing it. Like I said, cosmologists are hardly rending their garments. They are scratching their heads. All good science, dear boy/girl.

Your quote from Dawkins is missing its context. Perhaps you should go and read that chapter again, eh?

I'm going to have to stop taking weekends off! What the heck has happened to this blog???! Anarchy reigns! Cry havoc, and let slip the hounds of war!

Time for a (virtual) group hug methinks.

If you want to read about John Calvin from the Jewish perspective and his assault against the true messiah of Israel Marcus Julius Agrippa read Stephan Huller's blog entry at https://www.stephanhuller.blogspot.com entitled 'the Day of John Calvin the accursed, may his bones be ground into the dust.' It will help round your opinion of this accursed man.

Shalom

Jacob