Open thread

Mr. Crawley:

I have been contributing to WILL & TESTAMENT and, I would like
to know your background e.g. Resume on the information you provided on a timely basis.....

(Dennis Junior)

Thanks for asking. I would like to see more threads on Atheism and Secular Humanism. Given that so much emphasis is put on religion and theology when the former is the corporate manifestation of the other which is a fiction, it is high time that truth become the topic of discussion. Theology has no more validity than Leprechaun-ology. Too many are initiated as defenseless infants and continue to wallow in the pit of irrational religious belief. Surely if somebody tries to convince you that they met a talking snake or that waving a magic wand while uttering gibberish mumbo-jumbo will turn a cookie into a god then the speaker would be viewed as not playing with a full deck.

Religion is not the font of morality. The antiquated compendiums of tribal myth, magic and superstition can't be considered as models for existence. We see the ongoing wars or sports-tainment events when one side claims that their god allowed them to win. Well what about the other guy, is his god a different one? If it is the same god guy then it is is reasonable to accuse the creep of being a monster. If the gods are different and incite hatred of the other then why don't they do battle where they live and leave life on earth and elsewhere free to evolve without their pettiness?

Oh and please stop perpetuating the myth that religion is rooted in ethics. We all know better than that.

A question: How many years or posts does it take for people to be able to make comments without moderators needing to interfere? Serious replies only please.

OK... Will, Northern Ireland 2050. Where will we be? Will sectarianism have been properly expunged? Will our education system have recovered from Wreck and Ruane? Will we be part of a united Ireland? Will we be living in inflatable pods with MrFusion powerplants attached to the plumbing? Will people be making retro movies about now, and thinking how quaint we were? Will the Church of Jesus Christ Atheist have become the single largest denomination?

Bit of futurism, folks - take it away...

I don't have a topic that must be covered more regularly, but I have a suggestion for maybe a single thread.

On the thread about the atheist who left cartoons in the airport prayer room petermorrow wrote

"The scineceblogs links you gave do indeed make me wince, however, I'm not convinced, not convinced at all, that intelligence is a measure of the value or character of a human being."

Petermorrow is the christian on W&T I either like best or one of the few I like best. Yet I almost feel myself screaming internally against that statement. NOOOOO! I wouldn't mind having a thread entitled 'Is intelligence to be valued in a person?' to discuss that.

PeterKlaver

Forgive me if I expressed my comment poorly.

I wasn't suggesting that intelligence shouldn't be valued (sorry if it appeared that way); I was, rather, querying if the inverse relationship between religious adherence and intelligence you pointed out was sufficient in itself to cast doubt on religion.

And we could of course do a kind of reverse to your question, " 'Is intelligence to be valued in a person?' " and ask, 'Should a person's value depend on their intelligence?'

But a good idea for a thread.

Heehee. Am I discriminating against those less intelligent than myself if I talk to them less regularly or lack enthusiasm when I do so? Yet I prefer blondes...

How does one confront the intolerable without causing offence?
Have I caught Islamaphobia?

Regards
DK

Lucy, while I agree with you that religion is not the source of ethics, in Will's defence, the term is "religion AND ethics", like "chalk AND cheese", "Mars AND Venus", "Jekyll AND Hyde". In fairness, I don't think anyone sensible would be confused.

Ah yes, Helio, but are those conjunctive 'ands' or a disjunctive 'ands'?

Hello petermorrow,

"I wasn't suggesting that intelligence shouldn't be valued (sorry if it appeared that way);

It read that way to me. If you say that is not what you meant then please scratch my remark about it.

"I was, rather, querying if the inverse relationship between religious adherence and intelligence you pointed out was sufficient in itself to cast doubt on religion."

You somehow don't think that the inverse relationship between religious adherence and intelligence is bad new for religious adherence?

"Should a person's value depend on their intelligence?"

As I said on the other thread, not only on their intelligence, but to some degree: yes. Resoundingly yes. I think intelligence is a great asset in a person.

why is it i keep hearing the "battlehymn of the south" playing in the background whenever you make one of your speeches Lucy?

Peter K

You have a measure for intelligence? It's hotly debated in psychology from what I gather.

GV

I have been reading this blog for a while now and find it very informative, however I would like to see more coverage of other world religions, I know in Northern Ireland we don't really tend to be too interested in Buddhism or Hinduism etc but in a multi-cultural society it is good to have an understanding or at least some awareness of other belief systems. It would also be good to see some coverage of non-Western theologies (eg liberation theology). Thanks.

PeterKlaver

“I think intelligence is a great asset in a person.” - I agree.

But may we think on a person’s value a little more?

I’m thinking generally about the basic value of a person, the simple fact that we are human means that we can all treat the other with respect. We are *all* of great value.

Perhaps we might also think in terms of the contribution someone makes to society, the impact they have on others. There are those who, because of their intelligence, have had a greater impact on the world than say, me.

However I also take the view that there are many localised, personal achievements which will never be measured in world or historic terms but which never the less impact us for good. How do we measure a smile, a word of empathy? How do I measure my grandmother’s insight into my need to hear the click and rush of gas which signalled water on the boil? How do I measure the buttercup, picked (and then crushed!) by my, then, 3 year old daughter yet offered in love?

In this sense, then no, the inverse relationship between religious adherence and intelligence need not be bad news for the religious.

I agree with LucyQ that we should talk about "truth".

But it wouldn't be a bad thing to analyse the methods by which we conclude that certain ideas are "true".

Epistemology is a subject of great interest to me, and I am intrigued at the way certain contributors on this blog jump to conclusions about reality while imagining that they are the only ones employing "evidence and reason". They seem blithely comatose to the fact that they are making assumptions which they have manifestly failed to justify intellectually - something I find rather irritating, though unsurprising, given that I strongly suspect that these contributors hold to their point of view for personal, rather than genuinely intellectual, reasons.

Empiricism is a subject worthy of discussion, especially considering that it is self-refuting, and therefore the grand philosophy which derives from it (namely, "naturalism", also crudely known as "materialism" and "physicalism") is intellectually unjustifiable. Those who hold to this theory of reality are doing so by means of "faith" - or perhaps, to be more accurate, by means of "superstition". Empiricism is self-refuting in that the central claim of this branch of epistemology (that all knowledge derives from sense perception) cannot be verified by its own rules - i.e. empirically.

But I have long realised that many so-called "intelligent thinkers" (of the naturalistic persuasion) seem to shy away from a vigorous investigation of their own philosophical presuppositions. I wonder why....?!

PeterKlaver (12) writes in response to the question "Should a person's value depend on their intelligence?":
"As I said on the other thread, not only on their intelligence, but to some degree: yes. Resoundingly yes. I think intelligence is a great asset in a person."

Hello Peter. I'm a relative new-comer to contributing on this blog and as such, I should point out that the question I'm about to put forward is entirely hypothetical. I am a single university student and not yet a father. However, supposing I am a father of two children with contrasting degrees of intelligence. Should I love my A grade daughter more than her average sister?

Darren

I agree with LucyQ (2). Speaking generally and not necessarily with reference to this blog, I feel that part of
the problem is that blogs and news stories tend to react to events rather than stepping back from them to consider the broader context. So they get bogged down in minutiae at the expense of the bigger picture, and they also become highly ephemeral. So discussion of an earthquake in Haiti is soon replaced in the public arena by discussion of another in Chile, and Haiti fades away from view, though the people there are still suffering.

I would like to see less theology here and more philosophy. For example, ethical issues like the limits of free speech, assisted dying, sex, war and killing, the environment, business behaviour, etc. could be examined in the context of ethical theories, deontological, teleological, or whatever, rather than in reference to so-called Holy Writ, which I personally find restrictive, unhelpful and ultimately tedious.

After all, a Humanist continually discussing the Bible, Koran or whatever becomes ammunition for those who say we are obsessed with something we don't believe in. So, if believers want to have proper dialogue with non-believers, could we please have more secular subjects?

Hello Graham,

"You have a measure for intelligence?"

Not one that allows you to do a simple test on a person and get a fully reliable number on it, no.

petermorrow, post 15,

I've already stated clearly (twice now) that I think there are other things to value in a person than just their intelligence. So I don't know what I'm supposed to do with most of post 15. We seem to agree that intelligence is a good thing, but not the only good thing to a person. I'll even agree with you that there are good things to a person where being religious is not a drawback at all. As you seem to agree that there are areas where it is.

Hello Darren Paskell,

"However, supposing I am a father of two children with contrasting degrees of intelligence. Should I love my A grade daughter more than her average sister?"

No. You seem to make quite a jump from me saying that intelligence is something to appreciate to you wondering if you should determine how much you love someone because of it. I wouldn't go along with your idea, and I can easily think of several reasons why I think you should reconsider it.

The scenario was hypothetical, but let's say you and your girl friend were trying to have a baby and some day she gives birth. And not just once, but twice, you are the father of twins. How many years will it be from the moment of birth before you can even vaguely distinguish which of them is more intelligent? Are you going to hold off loving either of them until you know how bright they are? Of course not.

For a non-hypothetical situation I can look at my collegues at work. Some are definitely brighter than others. I appreciate the ones who are smart for being so smart. But I don't love a single one of them. And some of them are possibly smarter than my girl friend, who I do love.

Honestly, I think your idea of taking intelligence as a measure of how much to love someone is not a good one.

Surely in this case the "value" of intelligence or some other attribute is what it is FOR? We seem to agree that all humans are equally deserving of respect, but all humans are not the same; we have different aptitudes and characteristics that mean that for a particular given task (e.g. airline pilot) some people are going to have more "value" than others. I would suggest that intelligence is a fairly useful attribute in such circumstances.

Another example where intelligence is either useful or a hindrance might be philosophy. LSV above repeats his old straw man about "empiricism" or "rationalism", and thinks he can get away with his hand-wringing about epistemological crises, and the rest of us won't notice. It's not that he isn't "clever" - it is more a lack of wisdom, and the sort of categorical thinking that will never make sense of the world, no matter what, because the world does not run according to categories. Not really.

Staying with that point, the rational approach to the world does not need a foundation that we work up from exclusively. What we scientists actually do is start where we ARE, and work both up and down. Where we are is our "fixed point", not the fundamental nature of reality (which we may uncover some day - who knows?).

If reason is self-refuting (a strange point, because the refutation then becomes self-refuting, and furthermore ANY philosophical system based on whatever you want, be it space pixies or wormholes or cabbage worship) is refuted on the same basis. I suggest that instead it is LSV's logic that is up the Swannee. Indeed, I further suggest that LSV's opposition to rational thought stems from an all-too-human desire to protect some sacred milch-cows from the encroachment of science. We *could* leave the poor dear to the side to shake his fist in impotent fury at the destruction of his medieval idyll, but we're nice people. We *value* LSV for all his wee traits and as a human being in himself, so we will drag him by his tatty beard, kicking and screaming pre-enlightenment inanities, all the way to our Grand New Utopia.

Whereupon we will make him King.

:-)

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Will

Why not just keep this thread open. If people on other threads go off topic they could be invited to take their discussion and stick it... on here instead.

It would keep the other threads tidy and would allow people to discuss whatever they like on here. You could even call it 'Thread 101' if you like.

Before we got to the cabbage Helio made an excellent point about intelligence. Like a good Darwinian he makes an unspoken link to "fitness". The question always is "fitness for what?"

So intelligence can serve many functions. We can't judge the value of intelligence in a person until we decide what they need it *for*
and *why* they need it.

Also I've seen intelligence defined so as to include co-ordination. I've seen it defined so as to include, or exclude, wisdom. So maybe we should clarify what we mean. Broadly defined intelligence is a mark of the human. (We all potentially have it in a greater degree than other animals).
And wisdom is tied into spirituality - or the rejection of concepts like spirituality.
So maybe Peter Morrow and I have read PK like teachers, and misunderstood what PK is getting at here. Maybe he's on to something very important indeed - something that goes far beyond exam results and technical skill.

GV

"some of them are **possibly** smarter than my girl friend"

There types a wise man! The value of intelligence in action!

(-;

Perhaps a thread on the links between atheism/humanism and being a whingey moan, being intolerant of other views and having no sense of humour.

Peter (21)
"Honestly, I think your idea of taking intelligence as a measure of how much to love someone is not a good one."

Well said. My idea was hypothetical and I assure you I do not intend practicing, promoting or advocating it.

Graham, it's not just about Darwinian fitness. If you are on an interview panel, you will want to give a job to the person best able to do it. That does not mean that you don't value the humanity of the other applicants who are a bit thicker.

like the photo :)

could we have a thread where we all do an online survey to assess objectively our worldviews?

Then we could post our results and discuss....

I just noticed the Vatican Press Office has just issued a statement on child sexual abuse https://212.77.1.245/news_services/press/vis/dinamiche/a0_en.htm

Chris, have you ever heard of the psychological phenomenon of "projection"? You should look it up.

Pleased to meet you Mr Pot,

yours etc,

Mr Kettle.

H

I wasn't making a "fitness" analogy *that* seriously. (-;
GV

First of all we had the Chuckle Brothers, then we had the DUP snowmen, and now we have the Telly TUVies!

#22 - Heliopolitan -

"If reason is self-refuting (a strange point, because the refutation then becomes self-refuting, and furthermore ANY philosophical system based on whatever you want, be it space pixies or wormholes or cabbage worship) is refuted on the same basis."

Thank you for your erudite response. Unfortunately there is just a wee textual problem in it. I did not say that "reason" was self-refuting, but rather that "empiricism" is self-refuting. Not quite the same thing.

"...LSV's opposition to rational thought..."

Hmm. I'd like to meet this "LSV" fellow and give him a piece of my mind, because unlike me this "LSV" chappy is opposed to something that is very dear to me and which I champion, namely: rational thought. Or should I say "logical thought".

But, of course, I am being mischievous, because I know that you think that "reason" and "rationality" are synonymous with "empiricism". A false definition, I am afraid.

"We *value* LSV for all his wee traits and as a human being in himself, so we will drag him by his tatty beard, kicking and screaming pre-enlightenment inanities, all the way to our Grand New Utopia. ... Whereupon we will make him King."

Well, I am honoured to think that you could invest me with such honour in your post-"endarkenment" dystopia, but, to paraphrase Psalm 84:10, I would rather clean the toilets in the kingdom of light than be the greatest and wealthiest celebrity in the magical kingdom of chaos (aka the Alice in Wonderland topsy turvy world where the most "amazingly" complex things derive as if by magic all by themselves from simple substances - contrary - believe it or not - to all empirical evidence!! Perhaps empiricism is my friend after all!)

"...tatty beard..."

I must get working on that. :-)

Hmmmm. OK then, Your Majesty, what precisely do you mean by "empiricism" and "naturalism", and, moreover, what problem do you have with the schema that I provided for finding out What Is Going On? And as far as complexity arising from simple interactions is concerned, you could not be more wrong. Perhaps a visit to the Royal Library is in order? Or are you just annoyed because we have rendered your pet pixie irrelevant?

-H

...complex things derive as if by magic all by themselves from simple substances - contrary - believe it or not - to all empirical evidence!!

All empirical evidence? So emergent properties do not exist? Who'da thunk
it?

Sorry Helio - didn't read your 37. Mind you, I've tried recommending LSV read a book or two before, but to no avail.

Hold on, I'm getting confuddled. I thought you had slightlty Platonist leanings Helio? In the sense that you think mathematics describes "real" existent entities? And that these entities have at least an explanatory role to play when accounting for our universe?

Which wouldn't be empiricism or naturalism.

GV

@ mccamleyc - your link to the Vatican statement is very helpful, thanks. It looks as if these monsters are unwilling to be held accountable in the criminal courts where all other perpetrators would be indicted and face a public trial:

"In order to complete these remarks, it is as well to recall once again that the Church exists as part of civil society and shoulders her own responsibilities in society, but she also has her own specific code, the 'canonical code', which reflects her spiritual and sacramental nature and in which, therefore, judicial and penal procedures are different (for example, they contain no provision for pecuniary sanctions or for the deprivation of freedom, but for impediment in the exercise of the ministry and privation of rights in the ecclesiastical field, etc.)."

https://212.77.1.245/news_services/press/vis/dinamiche/a0_en.htm

Up until the Boston Globe went full tilt to nab the abusers in Massachusetts in the 1990s the criminal acts by priests were above the law. It had to be changed. Imagine that as good recruitment drive for the priesthood - commit any old crime and have no public liability - ? who wouldn't sign up for that?

Catholic clergy are still protected from prosecution in Italy. That is shocking.

Today we see that bad news from Germany has fingered yet another notorious family name, Ratzinger:

"Pope's brother asks for forgiveness over violence at school
Pupils claim headteacher was sexual 'sadist' "
https://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/09/pope-brother-violence-school

If this is a blog rooted in Ethics then why all the coddling of the religious corporations? Why not ask 'our man in the Vatican' if such a bizarre, anachronistic, misogynist nation exists as it is not peopled in the ordinary way nor are women given equality opportunity there?

Let's do start asking tough questions and demanding answers.

brianmcclinton, re: your #18

"I would like to see less theology here and more philosophy. For example, ethical issues like the limits of free speech, assisted dying, sex, war and killing, the environment, business behaviour, etc. could be examined in the context of ethical theories, deontological, teleological, or whatever, rather than in reference to so-called Holy Writ, which I personally find restrictive, unhelpful and ultimately tedious."

That is an excellent summary and very valid suggestion for the future blog. I see Ethics and Sociology as essential components of a philosophy discussion. For too long the chatter has focused on giving platforms to clerics to continue promoting unchallenged nonsense. I have great hopes for William Crawley to provide opportunities for meaningful dialogues on the topics you suggested allowing our communities to be shaped by common sense and reason.

Hrrm.

I asked Helio if he didn't have Platonist leanings, and it seems that the moderator thinks that I've said something insulting!

GV

It's comment 40 Mr Moderator!! Platonism isn't a dirty word!

Brian

You've known Peter Morrow and me a lot longer than Ms Q. Do you honestly think that we try to settle issues by making reference to Holy Writ? We never try to find common ground on which to base discussion?

G Veale

Lucy

You think you could offer an argument against the existence of God now? The speeches are great, I really love them, but you're convinced I'm a meme infected moron with a lower IQ than most atheists. An argument to enlighten me might be nice.

Just to pass the time.

GV

Hi Helio

You say;-

"Staying with that point, the rational approach to the world does not need a foundation that we work up from exclusively. What we scientists actually do is start where we ARE, and work both up and down. Where we are is our "fixed point", not the fundamental nature of reality (which we may uncover some day - who knows?)."


Helio, Christians are supposed to love God with all their heart soul and MIND so obviously reason should be important to people coming from that angle.

But if I were a gifted musician from the far east 100 years from now and I was having this conversation with you, you might not be surprised to hear me suggest that I can make best sense of the world and reality through music from my culture and era.

An early renaissance artist from Italy might counter that his view is actually superior to mine, though.

Obviously you are a big fan of 21st century science married to athiestic humanism as a guide to reality. That is your preference.

An African philoshoper 200 years from now might argue that his view is the best.

If we try to agree on what discipline from which era is the best guide to reality and truth, then how do we agree which it will be?

And for that matter, can we come to a common and objective definition of "truth and reality" if that is what we are indeed talking about?

sincerely

OT

I would like to see the blog become more of an open place for all people of faith and non faith alike where we can ask questions about each others faith or lack thereof and get anwsers, a blog where people can question each other without having to get a torrent of abuse from those whom like to dish out abuse but can't take even a slight remark back... i want everyone to be able to come on here not just the intellectual fuddies who put everyone else down and when we are open to everyone and free to speak then maybe we can all learn together.... i would also like to see some people who's idea of worship isn't banging a tambourine and who's idea of Christianity isn't an image of God in an andrex advert with the puppy playing in the background.... i guess what i'm saying is it would be nice to see more of the 80% of the population of this country who don't bounce about the place and don't hop from one church to the next rather than seeing everyone from the 2% who do...

Hi Graham, have you been rude about my leanings again?! In some ways you could call my views Platonic - I regard mathematics as the fundamental eternal layer of "reality", following the views of people like Tegmark and Penrose (although they have had their spats in the past). Where Plato was wrong was in his notion that there "exists" a perfect chicken, of which all earthly chickens are an imperfect copy. We've cracked that conundrum (or, rather, Gregor Mendel did). I think the "real" world is purely mathematical, but we perceive it as real because we're inside it. I know I've waffled on about this before, but I do suggest folks google Max Tegmark's Mathematical Universe Hypothesis, which pretty much encapsulates my views on this, but using big words and symbols and physics talk that little people like me can't understand.

OT, it's not *that* hard. Reality is there; we deal with it. I am not wedded to atheism - to me, atheism is a result, not a premise. As we expand our little bubble of knowledge, this may turn out to be an *incorrect* result, but that does not bother me. We *do* know that a lot of previous ideas were wrong - flat earth, YEC, phlogiston, epilepsy being due to spirits, etc. Not just a different perspective, but actually properly *mistaken* - objectively wrong. But we know this by applying the same reasoning *anyone* is capable of. It is merely that we do it systematically, and we build on what has gone before. That is the only reason why the current scientific knowledge is superior to that which has gone before, or that which is not scientifically based. We challenge and revise our theories, we discard them when they are hopelessly wrong.

Why, for example, do philosophers still bang on about Aquinas? He was clever, and made some very good points for his time, but we have moved on. His proofs for god are really only of historical interest now. Why the reluctance to let go?

Science and reason are not the exclusive preserve of "the West". Some of our best scientists are indeed Chinese or African (or even American, Markie!). Much of the most important science and mathematics of the last two millennia was worked out in Turkey; prior to that, in Egypt and Mesopotamia. Science is a worldwide enterprise, and our bubble just keeps expanding.

LucyQ

"For too long the chatter has focused on giving platforms to clerics to continue promoting unchallenged nonsense. "

Clerics?

And you are free to challenge any nonsense you choose.

:-)

Helio

Are you saying that the real world is mathematical or that it can be explained mathematically?

Christian Calvinist - may I very sincerely welcome you back? I can genuinely say that I rejoice to see you joining our forum again.

Your's is a voice that needs to be heard: it is representative of a whole swathe of Protestant opinion which, as I have observed before, all too often simply does not engage outside its own constituency. You are to be commended for engaging, please stick around and, I may have no need to tell you, but keep being yourself. If people want to understand each other it is so much easier to do so when there is no façade.

If we want to learn about the whole of our society we have to accept not just the the existence but also the tone of the whole range of opinions which exist therein. There is an onus on those of us who need to do so to adjust to what will be for some unfamiliar modes of expression.

If you want to be heard you are doing just fine and that is a good starting point for any new member; if you want to be listened to, however, it will probably be a good idea to pick up some of the tools of the trade over time.

There is probably nobody on the blog further from Calvinism than myself so I am sure, if you stay, we can look forward to some furious spats in the future. You can say what you like to me, I'm very difficult to offend so long as you do not criticise the Church of Ireland (that's my prerogative), when it comes to it I think I can give as good as I get but I hope you will remember in any exchanges that behind my words lies that fundamental respect which no civilisation has ever captured better than the Zulus: in their terms, Christian Calvinist, and I hope you realise it is a compliment, I see you.

Peter, yes and yes. :-) The latter is incontrovertible; the former follows from that.

H.

OK. We can describe the world mathematically. But, what does it then mean for the world to be mathematical, and, dare I ask, what is mathematics?

Hi Peter, it's like being in the Matrix, except that it is unnecessary for the matrix to have a host system. Ask yourself: can god change Pi? Did god *invent* Pi? Does he know all the digits of Pi? Pi is the end of god. He can't compete.

Very disappointed that one of my posts has been referred to the moderators already... i didnt realise disagreeing with GV was an offence.

spanish inquisition comes to mind....

”I can't believe you have had the audacity to return to this thread with anything other than regret and an apology for the sentiments originally expressed.” – why would I apologise for the truth? Why is it when OT says the same thing I do except in different words he is ok but I am hung out to dry? Why no rebuttal to my post? I can see no reply dealing with what I said or for that matter saying anything I said was wrong…instead it’s the old whitwell thread mentality coming back to the fore….anyone disagrees with your view of a pastor then delete any comments and deny all traces of opposition…how Christian. Another point that amazes me is how upsidedownworld you can talk of other protestants “besmirching Protestantism” and then go on to make sarcastic comments about the Westminster confession of faith and say that type of Protestantism is far removed from your own…… which of course raises the question of why do you think you are a protestant especially when you reject what many view as central tenents of the protestant faith?

Ahhhh PeterKlaver the very same man who called me a “waste of human brain tissue”….i’m quite amazed you haven’t noticed people being forced off after all you were one of the “famous four” that I used to mention so much so maybe your memory is subjective…
He forced them off with his constant crying to the moderators and bullying and name calling against anyone who disagrees with himself and even championed the closure of threads “On the bright side BLOGMODERATOR is shutting down some threads.”.
”And have you had emails from him forwarded to you in which he is campaigning against you?” No but I have been told that he has been sending emails around and also I would urge you to read his post from 14th January 2010 at 4:14pm where he says how has been talking to others and urging them and in the post itself the BBC to change the blog so that it will become too elitist for me and exclude myself and any other protestant fundamentalist from taking part in the blog…… he kept on with his demands to have posts deleted so much that woodcraft gave up entirely even trying to take part in the blog, I was of course bullied off the blog by Herr Veale after the constant running to moderators and the constant condescending attitude only a teacher could have, if you look at the now banned (who was that called for it to be banned again?) whitewell thread you can read about the people who have been forced from the blog…in fact it reads like a war memorial…with name after name of posters forced away for not following GV.
We shall remember them…

H

Yeah, that's what I thought. And I don't believe in the ideal chicken either.
This is why Plantinga's argument on (Natural Selection + Naturalism=Defeated Belief) means nothing to you - you're not a Naturalist!

A lot of IDers (and Plantingas critics) miss this, but Plantinga's argument has *nothing* to say to an atheism in general, just a particular *type* of atheism.
So if you take Dennett (or our chum Fodor) the Naturalist idea P's attacking is that everything can be explained in terms of physical causes and effects. Tegmark and Penrose's views on mathematical truths existing a non-physical realm would be viewed with a particular horror.

But what also follows (on Fodor's worldview) is that 'beliefs', 'desires' and 'intentions' have no explanatory role to play. Those words are just shorthand for our ignorance of the real, physical causes of certain kinds of behavior.
At the VERY most they might allow beliefs to supervene on physical states. But the *content* of the belief has no causal role to play. At all. So it is very difficult to see why we should trust our beliefs to be more than pragmatically useful.

But if you see some 'rational' structure behind reality, then this argument shouldn't even be a blip on your radar.
And if you allow beliefs to have some causal or explanatory role then I don't think that Plantinga's arguments work. But in that case you are looking at some form of body-mind dualism.

I'm pretty sure that LSV and you are just talking past each other on this issue. But I haven't followed the whole conversation.

GV

Why is a young "Gerry Adams" picture being displayed at the start off this blog, is it because he will talk to anyone including CH4 about jesus or does it mean that william liked the red hat in that particular picture!.

CC

"I have been told that he has been sending emails around..."

I e-mail with exactly *two* members of Will and Testament. So either you were told a lie, or...

On the 14th Jan I said horrible things to you like

" Okay, I take some of what you're saying. I think you're right about the Reformed roots - Puritanism can be seen as a kind of Calvinistic enthusiasm. But there are other roots... a very good accessible (if lengthy) book worth digesting is Roger Olson's "The Story of Christian Theology". A good Wesleyan Evangelical scholar, with an excellent blog, is Ben Witherington."
"Hope that helps a bit. The Olson book is definitely worth investing in."

So obviously I was out to get you from the start!And I made my animosity clear by suggesting on the 13th Jan

"I just meant chill, calm down, take it easy. I've disagreed with LSV on these things as well...I'm pretty sure it isn't blasphemy to disagree with the Westminster Confession of Faith!" I had to explain myself because I'd typed "Chill, dude! (-;"

A well known Nazi symbol.

Yeah, I'm evil and I'm out to get you. Whatever...
John Dynes and Pastor Philip are very conservative in their beliefs. John's a self-confessed fundamentalist. PK and Helio will point out that I've always expressed my admiration for those guys. I like 'em. Dunno what they make of me.
But speaking ill of the recently dead to those who loved them? That's a bridge too far young man. It was ill-mannered and indecent, and don't use your Reformed beliefs as an excuse. The atheists who blog here have showed far more respect for Mr Bingham.
GV

Will/ Mr Moderator

Have I ever campaigned to have any member removed from the blog?

GV

Parr

You misunderstood why I made that plea to Will that CC refers to so I think it’s worth pointing out to you why I appealed for elitism. You know I’m not a fan of elitism, and you know I’m more into cinema than Shakespeare. And I talk about these issues to 11-16 year olds of all abilities for a living. And value their minds and their contributions, whatever their academic scores, or ineterst in academia.

The plea was strategic. If a bunch of continental philosophers or post-modern literary critics or evolutionary anthropologists had turned up and started aggressive unpleasant posts on weird abstruse topics, I’d have argued for low brow posts.

You can have a good conversation about anything. Including Pringles, horror movies and Buck Rogers.

GV

Graham, don't get me wrong - I am no dualist. The "substrate" for our universe is one thing, but once we have those rules in place, the universe runs as the universe runs. I think where a lot of people get confused is over terminology like "matter" and "energy" and "stuff" and "fabric". I do not subscribe to the notion that there are spooky forces at work in the universe; instead, what we have is a system that runs the way it runs. I'm not a physicist, but I lean towards a sort of loop gravity interpretation of the universe - a mathematical entity, perhaps made of nodes (at the Planck scale) which are related to other nodes in a lattice that at our medium scale looks like "flat" 3D, but at the large scale of black holes and quasars, is distinctly non-flat; at the largEST scale of the whole universe is potentially rather oddly shaped indeed, and at the smallest scale of quarks and the like, is a twisty turny spaghetti-fight. Our loves, desires, beliefs and the like sit on top of all that - not beyond it. The only tools for analysing all this are science (to work out the relationships) and reason (to formulate these and to generate new testable hypotheses).

Does that make me an empiricist or a materialist? I don't know. I don't even care. I'm a scientist. My job is trying to understand the world as it is, not as I would like it to be. That is why I get a little frustrated by some cod philosophers who pretend that it is they who are setting the agenda. By all means they can come in our wake and tidy up any mess we leave behind, but the days of the philosophers telling Galileo what he could and could not say about the universe he saw through his telescope are long gone.

FWIW, the Tegmark concept suggests that universes really only exist from the viewpoint of those inside them; from the "outside" these are just mathematical abstracta. I find it rather compelling.

Gv your posts towards me always seem to follow the same patttern....
1. Be rude.
2. Be condescending
3. Pretend that you haven't been rude
4.Pretend that you haven't been condescending
5. Complain to moderators or Will in order to get my posts removed or get them to come in on your side

It's like being in the playground...

cc wrote "instead it’s the old whitwell thread mentality coming back to the fore….anyone disagrees with your view of a pastor then delete any comments and deny all traces of opposition…how Christian"
I think there's a very big difference between disagreeing with someone & then discussing it in a civilised manner, than the judgemental slandering & name calling that you resorted to!!
Big irony to see you now playing the victim..... is that a violin I hear in the background!

Helio

"Does that make me an empiricist or a materialist?" "I do not subscribe to the notion that there are spooky forces at work in the universe"

If you've two different kinds of entity (the mathematical and the material) you're a dualist of some description! But I think what you mean is you don't believe in 'souls', or non-material minds or anything like that. And that once the universe is "up and running" you don't need any interaction between the physical and non-physical.

It does leave some questions (why is this better than Theism or Deism? it seems much more complex - in the "Boeing 747" sense. And why should the physical conform to these standards?) But Plantinga's critique of NS doesn't obviously touch this sort of atheism. There's more "going on" than the physical.

Actually there might be some continuity with the Stoic "rational principles" that governed the universe. It depends on how you flesh your ideas out.

GV

Sorry my mistake, it wasn't a violin it's the dreaded tamborine!! ahhhh run for it quick Mr tamborine man, oh no too late....Tora Tora Tora!

Docrevholiday.... How is the whitewell's finances going? Are the annual finacial reports still hidden from the membership? are the millions of pounds still being spent without the congregations knowledge? Is SuperMac now a real doctor or is his doctorate still from an unrecognised college? Are angels still talking to him? How is the business meeting going? Is it still imaginary? Did SuperMac apologise for lying on Radio Ulster? The questions won't go away just because you dont want to anwser them... how long will it take before this comment is sent to the moderators?


I e-mail with exactly *two* members of Will and Testament. So either you were told a lie, or...
“or what? Maybe I’m telling the truth and you are emailing members of this site in order to influence members to go your way? Considering you have just admitted you message others on this site and looking at you previous comment which I refered to it would seem that indeed I was telling the truth.

”On the 14th Jan I said horrible things to you” – yes you did and whilst you can show two of your “repentance posts” as I like to call them I’m amazed that out of the 30 plus posts you have sent in reply to me (normally you send three posts for every one of my comments) you could only find two where you weren’t being arrogant or pretentious (though I had thought you had sent more because your three posts normally take the following form: 1st post = Rude, 2nd = Appeal to the crowd to back you up, 3rd post apologise whilst denying any wrongdoing)

”Yeah, I'm evil and I'm out to get you. Whatever...” – How childish instead of trying to change you just go into sarcasm mode.
John Dynes and Pastor Philip are very conservative in their beliefs. John's a self-confessed fundamentalist. PK and Helio will point out that I've always expressed my admiration for those guys. I like 'em. Dunno what they make of me.
Parr is anti-calvinist….yet while I have massive differences with his theology I have no problem with the man because he can give and take a discussion, the same goes for the vast majority of people on this blog…most can say what they think and disagree and argue but can go on and have normal lives, you on the other hand demand posts be moderated, threads be closed people be excluded from the blog and that’s if they even dare disagree with you. You constantly try and play to the crowd for example you say that the meaning behind your “elitest” post was taken the wrong way but do you talk to me about it? No, of course you don’t.

But speaking ill of the recently dead to those who loved them? That's a bridge too far young man. It was ill-mannered and indecent, and don't use your Reformed beliefs as an excuse. The atheists who blog here have showed far more respect for Mr Bingham.
GV
Oh please! what utter nonsense I did not speak ill of the dead all I said was that some of his teachings conflicted with scripture and it’s amazing how some people jump on the band wagon, I mean for a man who has heard him preach only a couple of times in the last 50 years you seem to easily fall in “love” and know all of a sudden how “inspirational” he was, now compare what I said to another poster who has received no angry comments and who asked if Bingham is even in Heaven? If the pope died tomorrow don’t be expecting me to go “ack he was a lovely big fella, what an inspiration and such a great speaker….wow im going to miss him” because you wanna know something? I wouldn’t sacrifice the truth in order to peddle a lie with the intent of gaining favour with Roman Catholics and I sure as hell won’t do it with Bingham in order to gain favour with his church! It’s hypocrisy because you will sit here and be at my throat and yet if I died tonight you’d be sitting on here tomorrow going “what a nice fella”…..at least im honest, what have the atheists got to do with it? Or is it an attempt at currying favour with them too like me saying “the atheists on this site haven’t said anything bad about ice cream so thanks guys!” 

"Complain to moderators or Will in order to get my posts removed" When, exactly? I can't recall doing that...I recall complaining about a Marcus comment once, but posted to tell him so.
And if you go back to your arrival you'll see other posters being very aggressive with you on your arrival, and me trying to calm you down.
Yet you took umbrage with me.

Whatever. This is boring.

GV

Pastor mc connell, loves the violin, maybe he should get one off those red hats as well, maybe for those business meetings.

Heli, it's Thursday, I hope you wearing your big hat with the horns on it, what time does the meeting start?.

ref 69
IS it just me or is the paranoid delusions of that post just incredible! I'm wondering if cc's persecution complex is to be taken seriously or is it a wind up?? The violin music is bringing a tear to my eyes!
I just read his comments concerning Derick Bingham!! OHH DEAR! What exactly did Derick believe that makes cc question the man's salvation and compare him with the Pope? Is it because he sang the name of Christ in worship??

Bored, GV?

My head postively hurts everytime I start to read CC's posts - in fact my eyes start to glaze over as one sentence merges into another one and he feels persecuted and the whole world is against him and he's only 19 and he's in the orange order and he's a reformed presbyterian and he reads the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Germans are after him...

GV, have I picked up somewhere on W&T that you teach? Is CC a disgruntled pupil? Has W&T become the equivilent of 'Rate my Teacher'?

#42 - LucyQ

"For too long the chatter has focused on giving platforms to clerics to continue promoting unchallenged nonsense."

OK, LucyQ and also Helio, PK, Grok, BrianM and all your other illustrious "co-religionists"...

Since we're getting nowhere in our mutual cogitations, and since we clearly have a different understanding of the meaning of the word "reason", let me change the tack of the conversation.

(For the sake of argument) let me say that you lot have "won". OK, here's a "white flag" (I'm only pretending, by the way, in case anyone feels offended).

So what are the victors' terms? What are your great plans for society?

Come on then, reveal your positive agenda. Tell us all your great vision for mankind. Do you, in fact, have any kind of positive agenda? Can animals (which, according to you, we all are) actually have a vision which goes beyond mere instinct? What's natural selection going to dish up for us then, since we are all on the "path of progress" (ha, ha)?

How are you going to deal with world problems? How are you going to deal with people who "slip back into those primitive superstitions"? Lock them up? Kill them? Drug them? What??

Where is your "morality" going to come from? Define it. Justify it. Let's see how "rational" you really are.

In your "utopia" what are you going to do with someone who dares to suggest that there could conceivably be more to reality than merely the material world? Re-educate them? Send them to the Gulag, like your mate Stalin did?

When someone stands outside at night looking up at the stars and says "There must be someone out there who made all this", what are you going to do? Cart that person off to the asylum? Prosecute them for being politically incorrect?

I suspect none of you have any real answers. That's maybe the reason why you so despise people who claim to have a sense of an ultimate purpose in life. In your philosophy everything is meaningless (as the writer of Ecclesiastes so perspicaciously put it). So why do you get so het up about other people's beliefs? If everything is meaningless what the hell does it matter to you what anyone else believes? If there is no objective meaning to life (according to your philosophy), then it follows logically that the only meaning we can derive is that which we create for ourselves. So therefore you should not despise anyone for his or her attempt to create meaning for themselves. But you do! This is ridiculously illogical. So even if Christianity is made up (which it is not, by the way), you still have no reason to despise it, since you would have to respect its existential benefits for its adherents.

Instead of ignorantly wittering on about "delusion" and "God hates you" blah blah blah, why don't your ilk publish "A positive atheist manifesto for society" or something like that (I would be most interested to read such a tome). Why don't you forget about "religion", since it's such a waste of space for you anyway, and do something more worthwhile in life? (As a matter of fact, as a Christian, I'm not a great fan of "religion" either).

How about it? Are you up to the challenge? (I doubt it somehow).

How about "Rate my Preacher"? That's more what this seems to be turning into!

John - you've lost me - is there somewhere I'm supposed to have been today? I was stuck in meetings all afternoon. And all that without the hat!

Here, I caught Alex Kane on Talkback today proudly declaring to Wendy Austin that he's an atheist. Good man, Alex - I may disagree with you on some political points, but fair play to you, sir.

@GV: No no no - not a dualist, me. The physical IS mathematical. Remember what I said before? There is no such thing as things. It's all mathematics - systems and relationships all the way down. Our universe is (in my view) exactly the same sort of thing as the Fibonacci sequence or the Mandelbrot set, or an instance off Conway's Game of Life. The only difference is that we are self-aware subsystems within it. There is no need for an external god to create such a universe, and indeed, in principle it is *impossible* for an external god to influence it.

Unless he can change Pi, which he can't. Apparently.

-Horny Hatted Helio.

Helio, hi.

If it’s like being in the matrix, aren’t you and I part of the matrix?

Is that not a problem?

And I’m not denying reality or our ability to describe it or anything.

Docrevholiday i couldnt help but notice your anwsers about the whitewell seem to be missing from yet another of your posts, your wilful ignoring of questions is quite bemusing. Actually no the whole world isn't against me...it would seem that there are about four people on this blog who are (as i have consistently said over the past 4-6 months, Musical Instruments in worship whilst idolatry was not my point...in fact it was that salvation according to Bingham was quite different to salvation according to God...but then Bingham was such an inspiration im sure you will all choose his side. Upsidedown world are you a real person or just another user who posts under two separate accounts? No i am not a disgruntled pupil's of GV that i am aware of anyway, I just cannot stand to be told that if i do not have the exact same viewpoint of you old fuddy duddies then im not welcome on the blog and should basically get on my bike or face constant moderation and emails behind my back.... it's meant to be a blog for everyone not a few cronies who want to be thought of as intellectual scholars who espouse Christianity practiced in small pentecostal churches which amounts to nothing more than will worship and hypocrisy rather than mainstream denominations and waffle about how great everyone is.... they did the same thing to paisley in the 50's when he was a kid and look what happened.... he proved them wrong and he proved that to be a protestant you can actually stick to your faith without having to water it down to appear hip and cool and all touchy feely types... i just hope that when people see my posts they realise that there are still protestants who aren't the theological equivalent of the andrex puppy!

LSV, I have no desire to coerce you into believing or not believing something. All I try to do is to shine a bit of light into your superstitious murky world, and I do so out of genuine altruism, in the hope that you might understand a bit more, and that your life might benefit, and the quality of your logic might move in the direction of adequacy.

As for letting crazy people believe what they want - that is all well and good, but when those beliefs start impacting on my rights and the rights of others, then it is time to curtail the ability of the crazies to do damage. You only *claim* to have an objective "ultimate purpose" - you can't *demonstrate* that; you only *claim* that morality arises from some magic space pixie, yet that is completely illogical, and makes a mockery of the entire field of morality and ethics. You're simply puffing hot air.

I have no interest in an atheist utopia (discerning readers will have noticed that I was taking the Mick a bit in my previous post). If there is a god, that's great; I have no problem with that. People can believe what they want - if they want to believe in Jesus thingy, cool. I will not stop them. But I will still *argue* with them, and I will not let them try to privilege their particular superstition above that of Abdul across the street, or Yitzakh or Sarinder or anyone else. Freedom OF religion implies freedom FROM religion, and in no circumstance should religious notions be granted special privileges, just because people believe them wif all their tiddly hearts.

If you wish to make a case for your superstition, go right ahead; do not labour under the delusion that all you need to do is criticise "empiricism" and suddenly the triune magic space pixie is true by default.

As the inscription at the Temple of Apollo at Delphi read, "Know Thyself".

Some day you may learn :-)
-H

Hi Peter, er, yes. Is that a prob?

H,

BTW, Can I call you HH from now on?

em... but I'd need to say that I am the matrix. There is nothing to distinguish one part of the matrix from another.

#78

and the sentences still blur one into the other and i think i am referred to in there somewhere and you make as much sense to me as the Fibonacci sequence or the Mandelbrot set or an instance off Conway's Game of Life and my head still hurts...

#79 - Helio -

"All I try to do is to shine a bit of light into your superstitious murky world, and I do so out of genuine altruism, in the hope that you might understand a bit more, and that your life might benefit, and the quality of your logic might move in the direction of adequacy."

Well I am flattered and comforted by such a display of obvious compassion (sorry, I forgot to preface that statement with the health warning: Sarcasm ahead...).

But if life is totally meaningless and leads only to ultimate oblivion - a life in which we are nothing but collections of molecules with no more instrinsic worth and significance than a table leg or the bristle of a loo brush - then why should I care about such things as needing to "understand a bit more" or having "the quality of my logic move in the direction of adequacy"? In your philosophy my life cannot obtain any benefits, because there are no benefits to obtain in a philosophy of death, despair, meaninglessness and oblivion.

What you don't seem to understand is that I have already tasted your benighted view of reality, and the great "benefit" to my life was to escape from that delusion and enter into the truth. But you seem to be labouring under the illusion that anyone who believes in the One you so cutely describe as a "space pixie" is burdened with the most terrible hang-ups and it is your duty to set the likes of me free.

I sit here quite amused - but also somewhat disturbed - at the depths of your misunderstanding. Perhaps it has something to do with the religious background of your neck of the woods, and perhaps I might have been tempted to think like that had I grown up in Northern Ireland. I don't know. But you are completely wrong, nonetheless.

As for my critique of empiricism: I am not saying that the refutation of empiricism leads to a belief in the Christian God. What I am saying is that this refutation undermines the claims of atheism. Therefore non-materialistic explanations of reality should, at least, be respected. It is intellectually backward and naive to fail to understand this.

This is just trench warfare we are engaged in (although I'm pleased you decided to come out and play footie with me in no-man's land on the Pat Robertson thread). All we can do in our stalemate is wait for the end and then see who's right. But then, of course, if you're right we'll never know anyway (that thought must be really frustrating for an atheist, I imagine!)

;-)

LSV, me old China, I don't know - I think you are a lost cause. The Mona Lisa, after all, is a collection of atoms and molecules. We are systems. Systems are not merely the sum of their parts, but the sum of their parts AND their relationships. Furthermore, just because afterwards there is nothing, that does not mean that we are stunned into existential paralysis. We hand the baton on to those who come after; we don't NEED some "absolute purpose", and it is one of your chief delusions that you think you know what one is (although as you know Nagel showed the very idea to be pants). As for undermining atheism, you go ahead and believe that if you want. I *would* like to know why you think your "criticism of empiricism" (whatever you actually mean by that, and whether you equate your "empiricism" with atheism) is valid - I have pointed out some of your methodological shortcomings that you perhaps don't appreciate from the vantage point of your Comfy Chair (TM), but you don't seem to realise your problems...

Never mind - as long as you are happy, you are fulfilling your little "ultimate purpose"...

#82 upsidedownworld i still seem unable to see any sort of a rebuttal or even a sensible reply to my post...instead all i see is someone unable to address the points made and so has to attack the speaker's style and lucidity of writing... You are like a boxer in a boxing match standing without throwing a punch but yet giving a commentary on your opponent..."ooooh that was a hard punch"...."oh he's got a good left jab", either address my points or don't... but stop with the whole "i can't read his posts because it flows too well" garbage because it is something akin to saying you can't read it because the spelling is so good... is there anyone left on this forum who can be honest and actually anwser questions straight without having to dance around the subject just to throw a dig in? Does no one else see the hypocrisy in claiming Christ as your Master and then condescending to everyone? or having foolish pride as though any of you are any better than anyone else??

#85

no, head still hurts... still not understanding your point... never mind addressing it... can you express it without the usual ramble / preamble?

Have you ever read Proverbs 17v.22? Do you like what it says? And all I'm looking for is a one word answer: yes or no.

H

So you're an "idealist" of some kind?
Not the "ideas in a mind" type of idealist. There's no big mind containing all the ideas in your view. But the ideas are what is possible and everything that is possible gets "expressed" somewhere or other.

I've pointed out before that this leads to the resurrection happening an infinite number of times in a Level 1 multiverse.

You also need to ask if God is logically possible. To say that he is *logically* impossible is a big statement. Way, way beyond Dawkins. And as I read Tegmark, he is committed to every logical possiblity being actualised (it being difficult to keep maths and logic separate etc). If you're not careful you'll have a kind of ontological argument here! (-;

It's just that the laws of logic and mathematics would be explanatorily prior to God. But he'd be worthy of worship and everything else - a person greater than any other. Just because the laws of logic are prior, doesn't mean that God wouldn't have any explanatory or causal work to do. Maybe the laws of logic would demand this. After all, the level 4 multiiverse would need to be logically consistent.
And Theists like Augustine held to a "principle of plenitude" - God being good would create every good thing that it's possible to create.
So a level 4 multiverse is compatible with theism.
(Maybe God could even "prune away" some of the absurdities.)

As for the value of pi - God can't create a triangular chicken, or a valley without hills or mountains, or a duck which has two different legs which are both the same. There's no argument from "pi".

But on Tegmarks view God could exist - nothing he's said would rule this out. There could be a person greater than any other - and that person could play a role in actualising what is possible. But the laws of logic would be explanatorily prior to God. (That seems implicit it some ontological arguments.)

It wouldn't be traditional Theism. But it would be Theism of a kind.

GV

Yes i have read it, Yes i like what it says...

Have you ever read Jeremiah 48:10? Do you like it?

#88

Just read it - certainly an interesting one! And on the basis of 2 Tim 3, I like it! How does Jeremiah 13v.1 sit with you?

William

ref Derick Bingham

As I said, a very respectful tribute to a great talent - thanks.

I knew him by his preaching and his reputation. A great man.

Maybe my question was too reambling before...

You said;-

"Our thoughts today are with Derick's wife Margaret and their family, who were his constant support and inspiration throughout this journey home. I use that expression, rather than the blunt description of his death or the euphemistic description of his "passing away", because I know that is how Derick understood the death he has been preparing for since receiving his cancer diagnosis."

I would be interested if you could answer this question.

Did Derick actually go home, as you say, or was that just his opinion about where his journey took him.

Because it appears to me this is a crucial question. If he was mistaken about where his journey took him, then so was everyone who ever bought into his teaching and writing and that has major implications for his legacy and integrity.

It would in effect be a beautiful and sincere lie and a complete deluded waste of a life.

Surely it is of crucial importance for us to be clear?

many thanks

OT

Post 76, Heli...why don't you check out your own words...what has happened to his head! post 33.

John Wright,

On the thread about upheaval on the RDnet forum you said that was getting as good as the WW threads. With the benefit of hindsight it didn't really grow into anything of the sort. But this thread might. Some of the same players have already shown up. We get bible verses thrown about again. Christians are being REALLY nasty to other christians, bible in hand of course. Some of the same questions as on the WW thread are popping up again. And once again not being answered (one of very few points where I think CC is correct). There are accusations again of people being forced off the blog. If only we could get poster 'arosebetweenthorns' to particpate again, then the brainless christian venom spitting circus of the WW episode would be fully reborn.

*sigh* Ah, memories......

Concerning, ChristianCalvinist! I have read your words with clear regards to all your posts and Believe me, there's really no difference in your theology than my own, but the only thing is, that it took me well over 20 years get there, after being a Pentecostal Evangelist/ Arminius, super healer, and a spiritual superman, for most off my Christian life "until" reality hit home.

In my opinion you really didn't say anything wrong about DB, but just maybe, wrong timing, anyway everyone is allowed their own opinion in life, whether the world says it's wrong or not, a great reformer was told ... the whole world is against you, to which he replied... well then, I am against the whole world.

Having said that, life has a habit of teaching us that "not" everyone is painted with the same brush.

Right lets cut the mustard...if that is even a real phrase or one i just made up i do not know but here is what i think is the problem with this blog...questions and anwsers...

Whitewash thread went on and on but why? No one anwsered the 5 or so questions that were asked...even after 800 posts people preferred to dance around the questions and if they had of just told the truth and anwsered the them honestly the whitewash thread would have ran out of thread probbably around post number 5.... and it seems ot be a problem that runs right throughout this blog, questions are asked but no one wants to anwser.

I myself am a hardliner and many of you view me as being evil and outdated and not on the same level of Christianity as yourselves and while i could sit here and pretend to be nicey nice and all lovey dovey in order to gain your acceptance i know that will get me no-where, after all how am i to show you what i believe and what others like me believe if i pretend to be something i'm not, how can i have an open and honest discussion when i'm pretending to be something i'm not? there are too many people on this blog who are afraid to be honest and afraid to say what they actually believe in case it offends others... maybe if some of you (not all) would be more honest and less hypocritical about what you believe and think and far less personal then maybe we could get somewhere in a civilised manner instead of having to listen to sarcasm and derogatory remarks which only lead to far fiecer comebacks and only serve to entrench views...

Either honest and open debate about thoughts, opinions and differences which promote understanding and acceptance of difference or elitest ramblings and condescending attitudes with a hint of waffling which only lead to arguments and cause deep division... we have no need to fight if only people were prepared to defend what they believe in not what they think they should believe in

Hi Helio

Sorry for delay in replying... you say;-



"I am not wedded to atheism - to me, atheism is a result, not a premise. As we expand our little bubble of knowledge, this may turn out to be an *incorrect* result, but that does not bother me."



Helio, I'm trying to put myself in your shoes, I'm not a scientist...
But can you show me the primary scientific research which prompted you to take athiesm as your result in the first instance?


cheers

OT

Helio

....You also say;-


".....the rational approach to the world does not need a foundation that we work up from exclusively. What we scientists actually do is start where we ARE, and work both up and down. Where we are is our "fixed point", not the fundamental nature of reality (which we may uncover some day - who knows?)."



Also, how can you be sure that you are a truly reliable fixed point to start from?

And how you even know which way is "up" and "down" to start probing in those directions, what makes you think those are the best directions to go in to understand the nature of the universe?


cheers
OT

Hi Graham,

So you're an "idealist" of some kind?

Perhaps. I don't like "isms" - they can be misused, or sat on by LSV and the like, and slip down the back of his armchair :-)

There's no big mind containing all the ideas in your view. But the ideas are what is possible and everything that is possible gets "expressed" somewhere or other.

Well, not quite "somewhere or other" - unless the "other" is in the abstract mathematical realm. The state of the universe may be (I'm not insisting on this, and it is potentially complicated!) a number, and whatever the "laws" of the universe are, their job is to turn that number into another number - the next state. Now these are all purely mathematical things - just like what you might find in the Mandelbrot set, so there is no need to postulate something "other" upon which the universe has to manifest itself. *Our* minds are sufficient, but they are wholly contained within the framework itself.

I've pointed out before that this leads to the resurrection happening an infinite number of times in a Level 1 multiverse.

Well, I *think* I pointed out that there may not in fact be *any* universes where such a history is possible at all, but even if there were, such universes would be spectacularly dwarfed in number (because there are infinities and there are infinities) by those in which no resurrection actually took place, but punters made up a load of old hooey and tried to sell it on as religion. So even if we grant you your point, our probability of being in one of that infinity of very very rare universes is extremely low. Certainly from what I see of the universe, there is no evidence that we live in one of those.

You also need to ask if God is logically possible.

Yeah sure - but even then he would only exist WITHIN one of these universes, not outside. Indeed, if you admit that it is possible that god does NOT exist, there are going to be far more universes without external gods than with them (even if both numbers are infinities), so this doesn't help your argument any.

I know Plant-boy tried to tag an argument onto this by invoking the "attribute" of omnipresence, but his argument is a morass of very very substandard thought and basic fallacy. Poor chap - you do know that I think many people overrate him, don't you? ;-)

It's just that the laws of logic and mathematics would be explanatorily prior to God. But he'd be worthy of worship and everything else - a person greater than any other.

As well as completely unnecessary, which would cause Craig and Plantinga quite a few problems. He's not properly basic (nor properly acidic, I would imagine) - simply surplus to requirements, and that is all I've ever really wanted to show.

Just because the laws of logic are prior, doesn't mean that God wouldn't have any explanatory or causal work to do.

But then you're just into godofthegappery, and who needs that at this time of the day? Besides, WHAT explanatory or causal work is left for a god to do after we've got our coherent Reason To Be?

Maybe the laws of logic would demand this. After all, the level 4 multiiverse would need to be logically consistent.

Yebbut since the L4M is mathematics, it cannot help but be logically consistent. Roger Penrose goes off on one on holomorphic functions and things - he may have a point. But he's too clever for my wee brain to get around.

And Theists like Augustine held to a "principle of plenitude" - God being good would create every good thing that it's possible to create.

Holding to a principle and demonstrating a principle are very different things. And why stop at "good"? Why not create silly things too? Why not create bad things? What's so good about good if you're god?

So a level 4 multiverse is compatible with theism.
(Maybe God could even "prune away" some of the absurdities.)

Not with theism based on a *necessary* god - it would at best suggest that some universes have gods (assuming the god can be contained in a mathematicological formulation of course), but it also supports the existence of atheistic universes and Thorist universes and AhuraMazdic universes and FSM universes - most of them (by far) are going to be atheistic ones, and I would suggest that this one is one such.

As for the value of pi - God can't create a triangular chicken, or a valley without hills or mountains, or a duck which has two different legs which are both the same. There's no argument from "pi".

Other than, of course, that "god" cannot be properly basic, but in the foregoing you seem to admit that. That being the case, precisely what does god bring to the party?

But on Tegmarks view God could exist - nothing he's said would rule this out. There could be a person greater than any other - and that person could play a role in actualising what is possible. But the laws of logic would be explanatorily prior to God. (That seems implicit it some ontological arguments.)

It wouldn't be traditional Theism. But it would be Theism of a kind.

It's not ordinary theism, it's Marks and Spencer chocolate-dipped raspberry-encrusted garnished-with-cabbage Theism. Nah, you're in the wrong place if you're in the food hall - try Old Ladies' Underwear.

:-) -H

"There are accusations again of people being forced off the blog"

Can't say I recall doing that. Don't really know what the fuss is about.
I do have to say that it would be best for all concerned if cc was ignored by Christians.

I did a quick read through his comments. I have come across his sort of rhetoric before. I could be completely wrong...but it fits with some very radical viewpoints.

The less said the better. Unless cc identifies himself clearly, treat with extreme care.

GV

Ok ChristianCalvinist, here's what I think, with Bible bits thrown in, and apologies to all for whom this might not be their thing:

Proverbs 16v.21: The wise in heart are called discerning and pleasant words promote instruction.

Proverbs 16v.24: Pleasant words are a honeycomb, sweet to the soul and healing to the bones.

ChristianCalvinist, you are rude. You use words that are unpleasant, sour the soul and break the bones. Many who contribute on these posts craft their very stark disagreements in such a way that are up-front, honest and get to the point - but all the time give instruction. Your foolishness and lack of discernment was evident to all in the Derick Bingham thread - and until you take a step back and realise that, all contributions you make and all engagement with you will be a jarring experience.

And one last one, with usual apologies,

Proverbs 17v.28: Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue.