Open Thread

grokesx (@ 334 from the Dawkins - Williams thread) -

And yes, your arguments are circular - spectacularly so - and therefore invalid. And "logic affirms its own validity" doesn't so much beg the question, as Newlach suggests, as get down on its knees and wails for it.

Ah, thank FSM for a new open thread. :)

Here is a Guardian story mixing faith and money. The Trinity Broadcasting Network, which hosts the worlds largest christian tv channel, has become embroiled in a scandal due to lavish money spending. Expenses include $50 million for a personal jet. By comparison, the family pet dog had to make do with 'only' $100000 for his mobile home.

https://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/23/us-christian-tv-channel-owners-lawsuit

Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.

@LSV

Yeah, it's a paradox. You are quite relaxed about paradoxes normally, so how is this one different? (I stress I'm asking how, not why.)

Anyway, any definitions in the offing, so we can be clear what we are talking about?

And the whole argument is pointless without the other half of the equation, soundness.

And just a thought - what makes you think a couple of blokes making half-baked arguments on the internet are going to resolve this? You might think you are the cleverest human being ever to have set his mind to the theory of knowlesge, but I'm of the opinion that if nearly two and half millennia of argumentation from really heavy intellectual hitters hasn't put it to bed yet, some under informed wibbling from us isn't going to make an impression either.

Still, about those definitions, cos if I've learned anything - apart from the extent of the things I don't know, which, as some clover bloke once said, is all an education can do for you - its that in maths and formal logic, if you don't define your terms you're just hand waving.

Oh, and yes, thanks for the open thread, Will.

"I'm of the opinion that if nearly two and half millennia of argumentation from really heavy intellectual hitters hasn't put it to bed yet, some under informed wibbling from us isn't going to make an impression either."

I agree that cracking the theory of knowledge will not be easy. Raymond Tallis has written:

"I also do not understand how it is that individually and collectively we make sense of the world - how knowledge is possible."

Nonetheless I shall continue reading the paradoxes Peter Cave entertainingly writes about in my attempt to understand!

This is "pretty" good value:

"The National Organization for Marriage, whose sole reason for existence seems to be preventing marriage, was recently forced to release internal documents as part of a court case in Maine. Numerous sources, including the New York Times picked up on one internal memo in which NOM planned to pit black civil rights groups against gay groups.

However, one of the most interesting memos details NOM’s plan to aid its cause by recruiting attractive but unintelligent celebrities..."

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/2012/03/non-cognitive-elites/

"Non-cognitive elites"

Sorry for lolling, but LOL!!

grokesx (@ 3) -

Yeah, it's a paradox. You are quite relaxed about paradoxes normally, so how is this one different? (I stress I'm asking how, not why.)

Continued from post #7 -

To regard the assumption of the validity of logic as a "circular argument" is somewhat akin to saying that if we were to construct, say, a table, we ought not only to check the measurements of the wood carefully - and not assume that we know how long the various pieces are - but also that we should use our tape measure to measure the tape measure against itself to check it's correct!! That is clearly absurd. Such an approach constitutes a category error of reasoning.

If you want to call the idea of "logic affirming its own validity" a circular argument, then that's up to you. But my concern is whether logic actually contradicts itself. Clearly it does not. Does the law of identity contradict itself? No. Does the law of non-contradiction contradict itself? Again no. There is no contradiction in logic itself. Therefore it cannot be self-refuting.

But the same cannot be said of empiricism, because of the nature of its fundamental claim. Since (strong) empiricism is the only epistemological theory that can justify philosophical naturalism (since our only epistemic relationship with physical nature is through sense perception), then clearly this philosophy is false.

Now I accept that certain self-refuting ideas may not be false - but, in this case, that is not the same as saying that they could ever be true. For example, "this statement is not true" cannot be either true or false. It is actually meaningless. Certainly a self-refuting idea can never be true, because that which contradicts itself destroys itself.

To be continued...

Continued from post #8 -

And just a thought - what makes you think a couple of blokes making half-baked arguments on the internet are going to resolve this? You might think you are the cleverest human being ever to have set his mind to the theory of knowlesge, but I'm of the opinion that if nearly two and half millennia of argumentation from really heavy intellectual hitters hasn't put it to bed yet, some under informed wibbling from us isn't going to make an impression either.

AboutFarce,

No need to be sorry to be lolling over that one. :)

Though some of the other stuff NOM was up to was hardly reason for laughter. NOMs race baiting tactics in support of their definition of marriage was highly distasteful. The good guardians of traditional marriage (well hello there, pastorphilip and pastor Bradfield) thought nothing of throwing some good old race issues into it:

“The strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks–two key Democratic constituencies. Find, equip, energize and connect African American spokespeople for marriage, develop a media campaign around their objections to gay marriage as a civil right; provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots…”

To take the last bit first - freedom of speech, questioning the right, naturalistic model, forbidden this, wrong conclusions that, Orwellian the other... There are a number of your preoccupations in that rhetorical, not to say emotional flourish. For one thing, the essential thrust of what I'm saying about the limits of reason and logic can and have been used to argue for the supernatural, not least by our friend Kurt.

And when I say making an impression, I mean making an impression on the subject itself. And that's because we're touching on a wide range of disciplines that have been discussed for millennia without resolution and I'm pretty sure our conversations haven't added to the sum of human knowledge on the matter. I'm not saying anything about your rights to express opinions and even if I was, so what? I don't get to decide what appears on here, nor do I seek that right. I've never even hit "complain about this comment" and don't expect to do so.

But we're still wibbling on a blog, and the chances of either of us stumbling upon a new insight in the course of point scoring argumentation are slim.

AboutFarce,

Have to say I had a good laugh over that bit too. I see they also had a strategy to create a Latino wedge as well and try and not only have them against equal marriage but to harden the Latino identity to effectively block their assimilation into US culture and social life. They really don't care what means they choose to try and procure their ends. think they would be quite happy to see ethnic minorities and gays at each others throats on the streets while they sit back comfortable that they have hurt both the gay population and the immigrant (though only the most recent of course, not their immigrant) population - 2 groups that some fundamentalist christians in America have always detested. They probably would have tried it with the indigenous population but they already are comfortable with equal marriage.

On a lighter note

Change of Heart in the Catholic Church

As it is late in the day I will point out it is an April Fools joke - but it struck me that the parody was actually more compassionate and dare I say christian than the cardinals original grotesque outpouring.

PK and Dave,

Nothing NOM and equivalents do surprises me, great defenders of the public morals that they are, and yes, this was the only chortleworthy bit of an otherwise repugnant little story. It says as much about their blockheaded notions about black people as their hatred of gay people.

I noticed, Peter, that you raised the gay marriage thing here in the UK in that other endless thread and deliberately passed over it. It's a consultation for England and Wales anyway, so we can probably expect to wait twenty years or so before the same argument is had here, although from the letters pages in some local papers you'd have thought that the Belfast Metropolitan (giggle) Tabernacle was about to be forced to perform gay marriages, with bells on, and the Pope officiating.

The situation in the US is very different to that in the UK, they have their own fight on their hands for any number of not very interesting reasons. But as regards the UK, I stand by my line that I see no reason whatsoever for there to be a campaign for gay marriage. I find it pathetic. I have yet to find a gay friend who gives a monkey's toss. I find it craven and pathetic and deliberately, needlessly provocative, and I find myself wondering just who are these gay people who want this so badly. Apart from Tatchell (always bloody Tatchell!), a couple of other publicly gay people have piped up only to say they don't care either. Ian McKellan, Julian Clarey was quite funny about it, etc. Nobody bloody cares. And yet it's framed as though this is some unifying, deeply affecting issue close to the hearts of all gay people. No. Also, as I suspected (although it failed spectacularly), there was a huge attempt by various religious groups to incorporate it into the wider "assault on religion" narrative.

Of the whole thing: HO-HUM!

Sorry Peter (#10) - could you clarify exactly what it is that I'm being accused of?

(Mind you, not having posted for a while, its nice to be missed!)

#11 was @LSV, of course.

Anyway, that said, to business.

But I don't accept that "logic validating itself" is a circular argument. A circular argument - or begging the question - is an argument in which a presupposition is considered to be outside the scope of justification - and therefore the unanalysed premise determines a particular conclusion.

Logic is a method - or rather the method of justification.

#11 was @LSV, of course.

Anyway, that said, to business.


But I don't accept that "logic validating itself" is a circular argument. A circular argument - or begging the question - is an argument in which a presupposition is considered to be outside the scope of justification - and therefore the unanalysed premise determines a particular conclusion.

Well, in this case the unanalysed premise is the conclusion, if you try to expand it into a formal argument, which is the text book definition of circular reasoning. (I will only mention in passing here the interesting argument I have seen that says essentially all deductive reasoning is ultimately circular, since all it does is unpack the intricacies of premises). As I keep saying, it can and is used as an axiom because there are very persuasive inductive arguments in its favour - the rules work most of the time. But the thrust of your arguments go way beyond this, and to explore them further you really, really, reeeeeaaallllyyy need to be clear on what you mean by logic. If you can't do that, then there's a danger of misunderstanding and talking across each other at best and outright equivocation at worst.
Logic is a method - or rather the method of justification.

Well, that's start, I suppose. But it is usually defined as the method by which we make valid inferences from true premises. So even if we forget everything about the limits of logic - forget metamaths and Godel, self reference and all the rest, I still don't understand how logic helps you with the truth or otherwise of premises that aren't contingent on other premises.

To regard the assumption of the validity of logic as a "circular argument" is somewhat akin to saying that if we were to construct, say, a table, we ought not only to check the measurements of the wood carefully - and not assume that we know how long the various pieces are - but also that we should use our tape measure to measure the tape measure against itself to check it's correct!! That is clearly absurd. Such an approach constitutes a category error of reasoning.

For example, "this statement is not true" cannot be either true or false. It is actually meaningless.

But my concern is whether logic actually contradicts itself. Clearly it does not. Does the law of identity contradict itself? No. Does the law of non-contradiction contradict itself? Again no. There is no contradiction in logic itself. Therefore it cannot be self-refuting.

Don't know what happened with 17. Posted 16, it disappeared, so posted 17, then 16 re-appeared. It's a miracle, I tell you.

@PeterKlaver

Why are you siting the American Christian execs for having a private jet when the pope lives in a fortified castle in the city centre of Rome, has other palaces and private aircraft too.

citing not sitting - ooops

pastorphilip, post 15,

Hold off on the persecution syndrome there please, I'm not accusing you of anything. Just nothing the overlap in your voice for traditional marriage as expressed a number of times on the blog here, and the position taken by people at NOM. You might agree with their position, if not their tactics?

LucyQ, post 20,

It's only that that bit up controversy broke recently, not suggesting the pope and his cronies are anything less bad. Far from it.

PK and Dave,

Further to #14, I honestly think THIS is the sort of case gay people should be much, much more concerned about, rather than some piddling semantic handbagging about whether civil partnerships can be called marriage, or whether straight couples can have civil partnerships, or whatever other ultimately inconsequential semantic nonsense the churches sniff about and the press gloat over.

"Can a homosexual person adopt his or her partner’s child? The case of Gas and Dubois v France.

March 29, 2012 by Daniel Sokol

Gas and Dubois v France (2012) (application no 25951/07). Read judgment (in French).

The French government did not violate articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 14 ECHR (right not to be discriminated against in one’s enjoyment of Convention rights and freedoms) in not allowing one partner in a homosexual couple to adopt the child of the other."

https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/03/29/can-a-homosexual-person-adopt-his-or-her-partners-child-the-case-of-gas-and-dubois-v-france/

The focus for gay campaigners and interested parties should be on test cases such as this to ensure that civil partnerships (couples should just call them marriages if they want, but that's my bugbear) confer equal status to gay couples under such contracts as a straight couple married in a registry office would get. I realise the above case is French, I accept that it does appear this couple are being discriminated against, and I do not know how the law in the UK would treat such a case. It appears to centre on an argument, unforeseen (puzzlingly) in the law, about whether or not the law regards your civil partner as your "spouse".

What it does make clear is that the legal ramifications of same-sex civil partnerships are different from those of heterosexual couples and this difference is not necessarily discriminatory. You can't graft the name of one onto the other. And I also think it by far more important that disputes such as this are ironed out fairly rather than quibbling about what the partnership is called or under what roof you can get hitched.

I don't accept the simplistic argument that it would all be OK if only we could all get married. In an ideal world... Yeah, great. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. Do I have a point or am I being terribly cynical about this? Feel free to fire away!

Peter Klaver (@ 22) -

pastorphilip, post 15,

Hold off on the persecution syndrome there please, I'm not accusing you of anything.

AboutFarce,

These test cases are exactly what we should be getting irked about and much closer to home as it is exactly what occurs in NI. In England, Scotland and Wales it is perfectly legal for one partner in a CP to become the adoptive parent of the child of the other. In NI it is not possible as the powers that be ensured that only married couples could do it. Our assembly (or rather the DUP) ensured that that was enshrined in law (which also affects unmarried straight people too) when the changes to the adoption bill went through. They specifically exploited the difference in terminology between marriage and CP to create the discrimination.

The fact that this has the potential to leave the child in limbo should anything happen to the biological parent seems of a lesser concern to them than ensuring that the nasty gays don't get to adopt.

Thanks for the quote mining, LSV. Standard creationist way of debating I guess. If you read my post beyond what you quoted, you'd see I presume pastorphilip does NOT approve of NOMs race baiting tactics, but that I presume he does share their position on marriage.

But do go on. In the same way that you say on the Big Build thread that you are happy for newlach to keep posting, I'm fine with you continuing to demonstrate your dreadful level of intellect and integrity.

@LSV

A quick primer on logical paradoxes

And another on Zeno's paradoxes.

The reason I include the latter is to flag up the process of converting Zeno's Paradoxes from insoluble paradoxes to solved puzzles. It involved a many pronged approach that needed the paradigm shift of Newton and Leibniz's calculus, the acceptance that Aristotle got stuff wrong, the realisation that logical positivists got nearly everything wrong and that the foundations of mathematics had to be studied a bit more closely. In other words, a bunch of people had to work hard, question old knowledge - no matter how seemingly entrenched, not skip over inconvenient truths and not dismiss the apparently trivial out of hand.

It seems to me that the status of the self referential paradoxes and statements are in a similar position to Zeno's down the centuries. And it's important to remember that no matter how insoluble the problems seemed to be at the time, Achilles could always catch the tortoise. Reality just carried on being reality whether we could work it out or not, and when we did work it out, reality didn't change, our methods of understanding it did.

And yes. Empiricism is self refuting, and you can't prove logic with logic. Move on.

Or define your terms...

Dave #25,

Well it appears the DUP has taken a leaf out of the Vatican's book, because the trouble the French couple are having is as a direct result of ambiguity written into the law because of lobbying by the Holy See.

I'll come clean: My aversion to gay "marriage" is just an aspect of my aversion to allowing religious hokum into civil contracts. A church marriage is simply a civil contract in Hammer Horror fancy dress. I'm all for any argument with the state about this, but I can't bring myself to dignify religious bodies by arguing with them for the "right" to call myself "married".

I know that's not exactly what this is about, and they may have shot themselves in the foot by wading in on a misunderstanding of this, but I can't even stand their being given a voice to whinge publicly about something which pertains -- or may pertain -- directly to me.

Let no religious person try to tell me all I have to do to be rid of religious influence in my life is walk away. The bloody ghouls are everywhere. Not least in the laws I have to abide by. Sorry, maybe my sense of the absurd remains a bit over-enhanced from having done too much acid in my younger days, or else it really is as gallingly, barmily, insultingly mad as it seems to me.

"You can't get married! The leprechaun says so!"

Well, ok then. I'll just take that up with my MP. End of. Bye-bye leprechaun people. I bed you good luck in trying to get that bag of gold off the little fellow.

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

Grokesx

"I'll let the professionals take over" is certainly not something one is likely to find in the airport bookshop!

Paraconsistency and Dialetheism (not a hotline to either the Pope or Richard Dawkins) provide the tools with which sense can be made out of contradictory premises. In classical logic contradictory premises explode into triviality but in paraconsistent logic inconsistent information is non-explosive and has meaning.

Difference between the two:

"Paraconsistency is a property of an inference relation whereas dialetheism is a view about some sentences (or propositions, statements, utterances or whatever) that can be thought of as truth-bearers."

I must admit, it's not an area I know anything about, but I understand the point that you have made.

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

Did someone hit the wrong button? That was a link to an article in New Humanist. Wassup?

Wishing all a blessed Holy Week!
Hope you each have a happy Easter, too.
(Do you have Easter egg hunts in Ireland?)

Hi MsCracker! Nah, here we eschew easter egg hunts for deep meditation on execution by torture.

AboutFarce #28,

I pretty much agree with you and would want no part in a marriage sanctified by leprechauns or any other mythical creature but I do see access to equal civil marriage (as opposed to the separate but equal situation we have at the moment) as a way to stymie these ambiguities and create a properly equal system of rights and responsibilities for people of whatever gender who wish to make that sort of legal commitment.

It's not for everyone but for those who wish it it should be an equally accessible contract.

What religions do after that should be up to them with each respecting each others rights to free expression of their particular beliefs.

I don't understand why any gay person would want anything to do with a religious organisation but I do know people who are part of gay affirming religions (including christian ones) and so I guess some must square the circle but hey each to their own and as long as they keep it to following their own rules themselves and don't expect me to live in a way which pleases their god then live and let live. It's when they try to influence legislation to make me live to please their beliefs that I have a problem. If they don't want to marry a person of the same sex then don't but don't expect that to be something I should have to give credence to, and the same goes for all their beliefs.

If they cannot follow their own beliefs without resorting to a law to make them then that is their problem. It is a bit similar to the fact that some of them believe that without belief in their god and the punishments which flow from that relationship that they could not be good people - not much faith in themselves.

34.At 16:38 3rd Apr 2012, AboutFarce wrote:
Hi MsCracker! Nah, here we eschew easter egg hunts for deep meditation on execution by torture"
**
Sounds more fitting for Good Friday, surely not for Easter?

Agreed! I'm just stubborn about it. Would you believe it if I told you I'm so stubborn and so fed up of them I'm in the process of studying for a career change so I can take them on more directly. There you have it...

Best wishes.

Hi MsCracker. Oh, I get confused. Peronally, I spend the whole Easter period singing The Grand Old Duke of York.

38.At 18:12 3rd Apr 2012, AboutFarce wrote:
Hi MsCracker. Oh, I get confused. Peronally, I spend the whole Easter period singing The Grand Old Duke of York."
**
Well, wishing you a happy Easter, however you choose to spend it. I'll be having ham & similar vittles with family.

@mscracker

I'll be spending the whole of Easter praying to Doubting Thomas, the patron saint of evidence based thinking.

Have a good holiday mscracker. Keep an eye out for Jesus in that ham! He does show up in the oddest of places (in America mostly)...

https://newhumanist.org.uk/2766/top-six-jesus-sightings

Church of England vicar involved in over 200 sham marriages jailed.

It is very interesting that the Church of England does not have to obtain a certificate of approval from the Home Office ahead of a marriage. This loophole should be closed. It has been estimated that each sham marriage costs taxpayers many thousands of pounds. The Church should be liable for any costs borne by taxpayers arising from these sham marriages.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17601286

AboutFarce, post 41,

The other side can play that game as well (though with better sense of irony):

https://www.satireandcomment.com/0208toast.html

Grokesx #40

Thomas would never advise you to pray to anyone other than God, but I hope you will come to the same place that he did - convinced by overwhelming evidence. (John 20v28)

The Easter weekend is a very good time to think these things through - go to it!

Lest we forget, Good Friday coincides with the first night of Passover.

Chag sameach!

Happy festival!

Personally, I celebrate Friday every single week.

It’s still a bit early for Happy Easter, so Happy Holy Week, mscracker. :)


Chuckle, re the subtle, Protestant ‘Christians don’t pray to saints’ post.

Here's a great BBC item on women's rights I saw this morning:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17589544

@44. pastorphilip,
It's more about the Communion of Saints than praying to saints.Just like my asking you to pray for me.
But, a blessed Holy Week & Easter to you, too!

@46 marieinaustin,
You,too! Thanks.
I have a dozen or so baby chicks I'm keeping warm under a light inside till they're big enough to go outdoors. So, it's looking alot lke Easter in my garage right now.
:)

@Pastor P # 44

Trust me, I won't need to spend the whole weekend on:

Premise: It says in the Bible that Jesus rose from the dead.
Premise: It says in the Bible that Thomas found overwhelming evidence of Jesus rising from the dead, leading him to proclaim, "My Lord and my God."
Conclusion: In the bible, Thomas was convinced that Jesus rose from the dead and proclaimed his faith.

I don't think we need to be stretching the capability of logic to its limit to work out that that's about the most we can say with confidence, without adding an extra un-argued for premise such as, "The Bible is true." And for that, one weekend is just not enough.

"this statement is not true"

Cave deals with this in book entitled "this sentence is false". He mentions that dialetheists accepts that some contradictions are both true and false, but does not explore the matter in detail. In the document Grokesx linked to above the issue is dealt with explicitly:

"One candidate for a dialetheia is the liar paradox. Consider the sentence: ‘This sentence is not true’. There are two options: either the sentence is true or it is not. Suppose it is true. Then what it says is the case. Hence the sentence is not true. Suppose, on the other hand, it is not true. This is what it says. Hence the sentence is true. In either case it is both true and not true."

Cave writes about the "not true" meaning "either false or neither true nor false".

Hi I’m familiar with the two-sentence version:

The following statement is true. The previous statement is false.

grokesx #50

Frank Morison wasn't easily convinced either!

If you want to follow through on this, you could do worse than to check out his book 'Who moved the stone?'

Simply follow the evidence and see where it leads......if you dare!

If you want to follow through on this, you could do worse than to check out his book 'Who moved the stone?'

It is not that the facts themselves altered, for they are recorded imperishably in the monuments and in the pages of human history. But the interpretation to be put upon the facts underwent a change. Somehow the perspective shifted --not suddenly, as in a flash of insight or inspiration, but slowly, almost imperceptibly, by the very stubbornness of the facts themselves.

"Anyway, I don't come here for long and boring conversations about Christian Apologetics, I come for long and boring arguments about science and philosophy"

Ah, grokesx, so you think you can do philosophy without reference to the god/apologetics question...? ;-)

Anyway, happy emmm, Eostre/Beltane, or whatever (Happy Sabbath, I suppose, if you are an Ulster Rugby supporter.)

Just wanted to share this link to some beautiful photos of Bonaventure Cemetery & surroundings in Savannah, GA.Thought it might be appropriate as we approach the celebration of the Resurrection.Plus, it's just a beautiful place to visit, even by internet. Hope the link works.



https://savannahnow.com/slideshows/slideshows/bonaventure-cemetery

Here's something else I wanted to share with you all for Holy Week.Sacred Harp singing actually came to us from the UK,was popular in Colonial America & continued on in parts of the South.From what I've read here, you all still have the tradition of Psalm singing in Scotland,which is the ancestor of Sacred Harp.If you have a minute, listen to the singing.It's beautiful & very moving:

What is Sacred Harp singing?
"Sacred Harp is a uniquely American tradition that brings communities together to sing four-part hymns and anthems. It is a proudly inclusive and democratic part of our shared cultural heritage...."



https://fasola.org/

@Peter M

Ah, grokesx, so you think you can do philosophy without reference to the god/apologetics question...? ;-)

The Guardian reports that some of the leadership of Brooklyns orthodox jewish community is very reluctant to let secular authorities handle sex abuse cases. The article notes some similarities to the catholic abuse scandals, in that community leaders stand accused of concealing crimes going back decades, authorities have not been vigorous enough in pursuing these cases and that witnesses are discouraged from going public.

https://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/29/brooklyn-da-orthodox-jews-cover-up

mscracker,

The cemetery photos are beautiful. I especially like the tomb of Corinne Lawton, the raccoons and the trees (live oaks?).

Here’s my Holy Week piece:

I’m not a big crucifix fan…Except for the San Damiano Cross. In the link below, scroll down a little bit to the three figures on the right of the page. They’re the three figures who appear under Christ’s left arm. At the very edge of the right of the three figures, there’s a very little face looking over the centurion’s shoulder. And behind the face, there are three other tops of heads. I am obsessed with this symbolism.

https://www.saintmichaelparishbedford.org/crossfr.htm

This webpage says, “Four heads peer over the shoulder of the centurion. Are they the centurion's servant, healed by Jesus, and soldiers (Luke 7: 6-10)? Or, are they the centurion's son, healed by Jesus, and household of believers (John 4: 46-54)?”

I don’t think so. I have an old booklet on the Cross that says the face is more likely that of the artist. And the heads behind him are a lineup of witnesses of the crucifixion. One can meditate on this for hours!

Since Doubting Thomas was mentioned, check out the following link of Toros Roslin’s Doubting Thomas…and all the foreheads! Almost as if depicting movement (but I made that up, don’t quote me).

https://www.superstock.com/stock-photos-images/1746-2835

I don’t know why I find this way of multiplying people (and maybe even time) so fascinating.

It’s easy really. All it is, is what a crowd looks like. A bunch of head-tops. Call me crazy, I just love how these artists rendered crowds. And really, that might be the least interesting detail in the San Damiano Cross. ...Or is it the most important...?

Quick shift change, but this 'is' an open thread....

Time for the annual Easter argument about the specific day and time at which the gospels say Jesus was crucified!

As an opening caveat, let me say that I can fully understand anyone who says 'it doesn't matter' - this applies to Christian and heathen alike. The only people this matters to are those who absolutely insist on taking every word in the Bible as literal truth. But there still seem to be quite a few of those around.

The 'problem'>

The 'synoptic' gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke are all very specific about the day on which Jesus was crucified. They say Jesus ate the annual Passover Meal, or Seder, with his disciples on the Day of Passover (bearing in mind that a Jewish day starts at sunset and ends at sunset the following evening).

Jesus ordered his disciples to spend the day of preparation for Passover (the afternoon before the Day of Passover began, during which time the Passover lambs are sacrificed and cooked) organising the Seder and venue. Jesus and the disciples then all met up and ate the Seder. Jesus was arrested later that night and executed at 9 am (the third hour - according to Mark) the following morning, which was still the Day of Passover.

So far so good. The 'problem' starts when you try to reconcile these accounts with that of John.

John says very specifically that Jesus was arrested on the day of preparation for the Passover - the day on which the lambs were sacrificed and cooked - *not* on the day of Passover itself. He was presented before the baying crowd by Pilate at noon (the sixth hour) on that day. He was executed - or 'sacrificed', just like the Passover lambs - on the afternoon of the day of preparation for Passover, and interred before evening that day, when the Day of Passover began and the Seder was served.

Three gospels say Jesus ate the Passover Seder with his disciples before he was executed; one says he was dead and in his tomb before the Passover Seder was served. In Jerusalem at that time there was only ever one Seder meal served, and that was always on the Day of Passover itself. One of the accounts appears to be wrong.

Hopefully you can see why this has puzzled theologians and historians of the New Testament for a couple of centuries now?

In Jewish law, there is a strict prohibition on the consumption of blood. I find it impossible to believe that any Jew would, even if only symbolically, consume someone's flesh and blood.

[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

Re:#63

As in so much discussion about religion, the humour has been removed.


;o)

@60.marieinaustin,
Thank you so much for the link about the San Damiano crucifix. It does have more of an Eastern look, as the site mentions.I'd not read that before.Makes sense if there were Syrian monks nearby.I read something about the Shroud of Turin possibly influencing the style of icons dating back to when it may have been kept in Syria or thereabouts.Supposedlt it was folded so only the face was visible & the marks you see on icons & also here in the San Damiano crucifix were taken from the image on the shroud.
I love St. Francis & used "Francis" for one of my sons as a middle name.It was my grandfather's name,too.
Thanks, too, for the St. Thomas icon page.Because the style never changes much it's hard to tell on 1st glance if an icon's 10 yrs old or a thousand.And each icon tells a story.Really interesting subject.

Peter Klaver (@ 26) -

Thanks for the quote mining, LSV. Standard creationist way of debating I guess.

If you read my post beyond what you quoted, you'd see I presume pastorphilip does NOT approve of NOMs race baiting tactics, but that I presume he does share their position on marriage.

@64.Scotch Git,
The humor might be gone but your statement makes sense.It was a pretty outrageous idea & many followers did walk away because of that.

Peter Klaver (@ 26) - continued...

I'm fine with you continuing to demonstrate your dreadful level of intellect and integrity.

@62. newdwr54,
Thank you for the questions to ponder & thank you for the fairminded way you present it.Appreciate that.

@62. newdwr54,
I saw this online, written by the Holy Father:

The Dating of the Last Supper
POPE BENEDICT XVI
"The problem of dating Jesus' Last Supper arises from the contradiction on this point between the Synoptic Gospels, on the one hand, and Saint John's Gospel, on the other..."

https://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re1049.htm

Re: Sudanese Christians

This will, I'm sure, be of interest.

70. mscracker:

Thanks for that. It's very refreshing to read the Pope's views on this subject.

What's striking is that he freely accepts that there is a glaring difference between the gospel accounts, and that it follows therefore that one of them must be mistaken. This obvious and mundane conclusion can hardly be said to have caused him a crisis of faith!

You wouldn't believe the contortions I have seen literalists twist themselves into over the years in order to try to explain this discrepancy away.

One person insisted the two versions had different ways of counting the hours. Aside from being absurd in itself, this explanation would have required the 'baying crowd' to be assembled in front of Pilate's palace in total darkness in the middle of the night! My correspondent found this to be a perfectly reasonable suggestion.

Another suggested that Jesus ate the Samaritan Passover, which takes place (apparently?) on the night before the Jewish one. He was happy to accept that this would have basically required Jesus to have been a Samaritan rather than an Orthodox Jew.

All these outlandish suggestions were made not because they are plausible in any way, but for the simple reason that they appear to make the texts 'fit', however awkwardly, with a literal interpretation of the Bible.

So well done to the Pope for simply accepting that one of the accounts is simply mistaken and not letting it trouble is faith in the slightest.

newdwr54

This would seem like a mystery not even Columbo could get to the bottom of!

I just wanted to say something about the Koran. In last night's edition of Night Waves Philip Dodd was in conversation with Tom Holland (his book entitled The Shadow of the Sword has just been published). He made the point that the Koran is the equivalent of Jesus; not the Bible. It is considered divine, eternal and uncreated.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01f68dz

Tonight's In Our Time was about George Fox and the Quakers (quite a lot of religious persecution). Very interesting.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01f67y4

73. newlach:

"This would seem like a mystery not even Columbo could get to the bottom of!"

At least with Columbo they always show you what *really* happened at the start!

66. logica_sine_vanitate:

I thought the idea of a causal connection between intelligence and complexity was already fairly well established in evolution theory: the more complex a thing is the more likely it is to have evolved intelligence. Not sure how that works the other way around though?

68. logica_sine_vanitate wrote:

"If you want to try to convince me that the most complex systems known to man must have been the result of totally mindless and unguided forces (subject to exponentially increasing improbability), then please go ahead and provide the evidence."

I think you've got this all muddled up. Natural selection is mindless but it certainly provides direction. What you're suggesting is like saying a stream was 'designed' because the water it contains took a path of least resistance across the randomly arranged rocks and soil it passes over. The stream only has the 'appearance' of design if viewed without hindsight.

Likewise, it's just plain nonsensical to say that increasing complexity is "subject to exponentially increasing improbability". The opposite is true. The longer an organism has to evolve (produce successive mutations each gradually more adapted to their given environment) the more likely it is to gain complexity.

Evolution is one of those things which, like Biblical literalism, is only really a problem for fundamentalists whose faith is skin deep. The main Christian denominations have no problem accepting the theory and fact of evolution, and as discussed earlier, confident faiths are not remotely phased by the knowledge that the Bible contains a few matter of fact mistakes.

newdwr54 (@ 75) -

I thought the idea of a causal connection between intelligence and complexity was already fairly well established in evolution theory: the more complex a thing is the more likely it is to have evolved intelligence. Not sure how that works the other way around though?

76. logica_sine_vanitate wrote:

"OK, so I take it that you don't accept the principle that we can infer the nature of a cause from the nature of an effect?"

Does it not betray an anthropogenic bias to even ask what the 'nature' of the cause/effect is? The cause is naturalistic evolution and its effect is, in this case, human intelligence. There doesn't have to be any deeper mystery to it than that.

".....complexity cannot arise from that which is less complex, and thus intelligence cannot arise from non-intelligence"

That is demonstrably untrue. Snowflakes are complex yet they arise naturally from less complex components. Likewise the arrangements of pebbles on a beach; waves on the ocean; light waves divided by wavelength and frequency; cloud formation; stratification of the atmosphere; complex organic molecules from disassociated atoms... no intelligent input required for any of these.

Those are just a few examples of how greater complexity can arise naturally from lesser complexity. Why do you make an exception for biological processes and the evolution of intelligence/consciousness? To me that looks like an argument from incredulity.

"Perhaps you know of a scientist who seeks to develop systems (say an engineer or a chemist) who only ever uses the "non-intelligence" principle as the means of designing his products?"

Again, you're introducing anthropogenic influences. Just because humans design complexity using their intelligence, it does not follow that all complex things are intelligently designed. As per the examples above, greater complexity arises from lesser complexity naturally all the time - though apparently unnoticed by some.

"The truth is that there is not one shred of evidence that intelligent complex living systems are the result of non-intelligence:..."

Apart from the fossil record; molecular biology; genetics; physiology and anatomy; developmental biology; evolution... etc, etc.

All you have to do is look around at our surviving fellow hominids. We'd probably agree that chimps are less intelligent than humans, but most studies suggest that chimps are more intelligent than gorillas. The evidence from genetics suggest that humans are more closely related to chimps than to gorillas. There already we have evidence suggesting that there is a 'sliding scale' of intelligence even among our closest living non-human relatives.

In principle you can extend this sliding scale right back to, say, the sea slug, and see that there are innumerable intermediate stages of brain development even among surviving modern species. If you are unable to see from this that evolution provides an explanation for human brain development then again I'm sorry to say that this amounts to an argument from incredulity on your part.

newdwr54 (@ 77) -

Does it not betray an anthropogenic bias to even ask what the 'nature' of the cause/effect is? The cause is naturalistic evolution and its effect is, in this case, human intelligence. There doesn't have to be any deeper mystery to it than that.

That is demonstrably untrue. Snowflakes are complex yet they arise naturally from less complex components. Likewise the arrangements of pebbles on a beach; waves on the ocean; light waves divided by wavelength and frequency; cloud formation; stratification of the atmosphere; complex organic molecules from disassociated atoms... no intelligent input required for any of these.

Continued from post #78 -

Those are just a few examples of how greater complexity can arise naturally from lesser complexity. Why do you make an exception for biological processes and the evolution of intelligence/consciousness? To me that looks like an argument from incredulity.

Again, you're introducing anthropogenic influences. Just because humans design complexity using their intelligence, it does not follow that all complex things are intelligently designed. As per the examples above, greater complexity arises from lesser complexity naturally all the time - though apparently unnoticed by some.

LSV, posts 66, 68,

Many words in those two posts, but nothing that undoes the fact that you selectively quoted something from my earlier posts to suggest a thing for which I had explicitly stated the opposite. Since there didn't appear to be anything of valid substance in your posts, there is little for me to respond to.

Maybe we should therefore focus on other things that were left open in our recent exchanges. Some explanation of anything through the creationist model is a large gap that deserves some more attention. The various requests to you to explain some aspects of living nature have so far gone unanswered. Your only posts dedicated to that were about the human spine, and unfortunately they did not include one bit of explanation of how the spine was created through intelligence. A bit embarrassing for a creationist like you that the creationist model is left without anything that it can explain, you might agree? So can you improve the situation there, can you give any detail of how something in living nature was created through intelligence?

Continued from post #79 -

Apart from the fossil record; molecular biology; genetics; physiology and anatomy; developmental biology; evolution... etc, etc.

All you have to do is look around at our surviving fellow hominids. ... There already we have evidence suggesting that there is a 'sliding scale' of intelligence even among our closest living non-human relatives.

78. logica_sine_vanitate wrote:

"Oh dear. What a terrible argument you've presented here.

You're using these examples as evidence of the kind of complexity characteristic of life?"

No I wasn't. Let's be accurate here. I was responding to *your* specific claim @ 76:

"... complexity cannot arise from that which is less complex..."

No mention of "life" here, is there? My argument shows that you were completely wrong about this point (though I see you have now back-tracked). Greater complexity arises from lesser complexity all the time in nature.

You are still stuck in an argument from incredulity. You now accept that nature can utilise "algorithmically compressible information content" to create "relatively simple structures". So here's a question: what constraint does nature impose that would prevent these "relatively simple structures" from becoming slightly - 'minutely' - more complex?

'Complex' doesn't mean 'inexplicable'.

newdwr54 (@ 75) -

I think you've got this all muddled up. Natural selection is mindless but it certainly provides direction. What you're suggesting is like saying a stream was 'designed' because the water it contains took a path of least resistance across the randomly arranged rocks and soil it passes over. The stream only has the 'appearance' of design if viewed without hindsight.

Continued from post #83 -

Likewise, it's just plain nonsensical to say that increasing complexity is "subject to exponentially increasing improbability". The opposite is true. The longer an organism has to evolve (produce successive mutations each gradually more adapted to their given environment) the more likely it is to gain complexity.

LSV, I see you're rolling out one of your favourite argument from jargon terms again, when you keep saying 'algorithmically incompressible' information. But I don't remember you ever explaining that any better than how you have so far not explained anything of how intelligence creates life. Since you pointed newdwr54 to a rather old post, something may have slipped by me in the the time since then. But could you provide some info on algorithmically incompressible information please? How is it defined? How is it different from other types of information like e.g. Kolmogorov information? How is it quantified? Can you give some examples of how this type of information was determined for parts of living systems? Since you like to bang on about the information in DNA I presume you can tell us some more detail about the algorithmically incompressible information in DNA, how it was determined, how large it is, etc?

79. logica_sine_vanitate:

"Nothing any atheist has ever presented has convinced me of the idea that life must have - or even could have - arisen without intelligent input."

I see that in this post you have switched attention away from the evolution of intelligence and are now concentrating on abiogenesis. That's quite a leap you took there. Never mind.

It's not only atheists who assert that life began by natural processes. Many religious folk accept this too; only they argue that it was these natural processes that were put in place by God. That's fine as far as I'm concerned - that's a matter of belief. My question would always be the simplistic one: "so where did God come from?" But of course there is no answer to that.

None of this has anything to do with the fact of evolution.

newdwr54 (@ 82) -

My argument shows that you were completely wrong about this point (though I see you have now back-tracked). Greater complexity arises from lesser complexity all the time in nature.

81. logica_sine_vanitate wrote:

"Which fossil shows us conclusively that it is of a creature formed without the input of intelligence?"

All of them. In both their 'nature' and their placement within the geologic column.

The fossil record shows that there was no engineered, planned, designed or orchestrated attempt to produce 'man'. It shows the opposite. It shows what Darwin said it would show over 150 years ago. He was right.

The major Christian faiths of the world have no problem accepting this fact. That's because, unlike you perhaps (?) they are confident in their beliefs. They understand that Christianity is far deeper than silly attempts to support every single verse in the Bible as if they were incontestable.

Let me just quote you the words of a well-known evolutionary biologist, who also happens to be a devout Christian:

"...our existence in the living world is an inherent part of nature itself... if God exists, he is the author of nature itself, and the cause of causes."

['Only a Theory'; Kenneth R. Miller, 2008]

Miller here respects the primacy of nature and of science. He doesn't attempt to use bogus, wordy, philosophical arguments to hide behind real-world facts. If there *is* a God, then He would surely want us to use our intellect to decipher the world He has placed us in? He wouldn't plant 'false evidence'? He wouldn't lie?

I can have no argument with Miller's point of view, although my instinct is to disagree with his conclusion. But I can 'respect' Ken Miller's point of view - because it is based on acceptance of real world evidence. Unfortunately I cannot respect not yours, I'm afraid, for the same reason.

newdwr54 (@ 75) -

I seem to have overlooked this little juicy morsel:

Evolution is one of those things which, like Biblical literalism, is only really a problem for fundamentalists whose faith is skin deep. The main Christian denominations have no problem accepting the theory and fact of evolution, and as discussed earlier, confident faiths are not remotely phased by the knowledge that the Bible contains a few matter of fact mistakes.

Peter Klaver (@ 85) -

I see you're rolling out one of your favourite argument from jargon terms again

LSV

The development of life is a sequence (unless you want to believe that elephants emerged intact from the primordial soup in one single reaction).

89. logica_sine_vanitate wrote:

"So an atheist takes it upon himself to declare that those Christians who believe that God is actually the creator of the universe and all within it, possess a faith which is only "skin deep"!!!"

All Christians claim that God is the creator of the universe, don't they? And it may be true. I'm only an atheist to the extent that I do not 'believe' there is a God (or gods, or ghosts, or supernatural beings, or 'supernaturalism' of any sort). I don't emphatically say that 'there is no God'.

Many Christians believe that God set in place the conditions by which humans (or some from of intelligence) might evolve. This is the best argument for God, in my view. It's a God that fits well with the observable facts, such as evolution.

But it's a different God, I suspect, from the one that you, with your rather shallow faith, would be prepared to believe in.

87. logica_sine_vanitate wrote:

"I don't believe that I have back-tracked - well, at least I can't see where I have done so!"

I'll just go over it again.

@ 76 you said:

"...given that an effect can never be greater than its cause... then it follows that complexity cannot arise from that which is less complex..."

I gave you a few examples of how greater complexity forms naturally from less complex processes, such as the formation of clouds, waves, etc. You replied, even adding your own example of crystals, that nature does indeed produce more complex things from less complex ones.

The argument that this 'natural' complexity is also the result of intelligence is beside the point. You were wrong to say that less complex things or processes "cannot" produce more complex things or processes. They do it all the time.

It should be obvious now that the same intelligence you see behind naturally occurring complexity could just as easily be responsible for the arising and evolution of life. On the one hand you want to ascribe the 'hand of God' to naturally complex systems like gravity, etc; yet on the other hand you want to limit God's ability by claiming that he can't be responsible for allowing life to form naturally and be shaped naturally by evolution - even though these are just expressions of natural complexity in different forms.

So it's *you* that is placing limits on God's potency here, not the many Christian Churches who accept that life arose on earth from natural processes and took shape via evolution. Instead of seeing this as a restriction on God's power, they see it as one of his finest achievements.

@LSV

I notice you reprise your information theory wibble. My response at the time was:

Well, hokay then. In the second paragraph of your post, claiming to be "basic information theory that makes a mockery of [insert flamboyant rhetorical nonsense here]" you bring in the term "specified complexity" that is not part of information theory at all. Proposed by Intelligent Design theorist and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary Research Professor William Dembski, it has not been the basis for any further work in information theory, complexity theory or biology.

So, in terms of information theory, your post is, well, meaningless.

I'm sure, though, that as an acknowledged expert in the field, you will be aware of the work of Gregory Chaitin, who, as a precocious teenager in the sixties developed the theories that led to the independent discovery of Kolmogorov complexity, from whence some of your witterings on algorithmic compressibility derive. I'm sure, though, that as an acknowledged expert in the field, you will be aware of the work of Gregory Chaitin, who, as a precocious teenager in the sixties developed the theories that led to the independent discovery of Kolmogorov complexity, from whence some of your witterings on algorithmic compressibility derive. By way of a delicious aside, Chaitin is known for something else, the Chaitin Incompleteness Theorem. Yes, our old bespectacled Austrian friend has popped up again.

LSV, post 90,

"Please define "argument from jargon"."

By that I mean people trying to impress the opposition by throwing about fancy terms (like your 'algorithmically incompressible') without there being much substance behind the words. You linked to a previous posts that parrots some of Dembski's words, where 'specified complexity' comes in to explain 'algorithmically incompressible'. Something that when challenged on, Dembski himself couldn't define very well or indicate how it was quantified. So you pointing to your own old posts explains nothing, because that old post wouldn't tell you exactly what the specified complexity in DNA is. It just replaces one hollow jargon bluff with another hollow jargon bluff. Neither does it tell us how it is quantified, not even roughly to get an order of magnitude estimate of it. So claims of 'the algorithmically incompressible information in DNA could not have arisen through evolution' are rubbish, as Dembski and his parrots like you don't even have a clearly defined idea of what it is, let alone how you would determine it in a system like DNA.

Go ahead, point us to published scientific work where specified complexity is quantified (even just roughly to get an order of magnitude estimate) for something like DNA. As Dembski parrots like you don't even know what it is exactly, this should be interesting.

As for the rest of your post, it's your same old argument from double standards again:

"It might come as some relief to you to know that I infer that the post was generated with the use of intelligence."

From the same LSV who has argued against so many scientific observations that are not based on direct observation (like dark matter) because they were inferred, LOL. But hey, don't let consistency stop you from cheerleading for goddunnit.

newdwr54 (@ 93) -

I gave you a few examples of how greater complexity forms naturally from less complex processes, such as the formation of clouds, waves, etc. You replied, even adding your own example of crystals, that nature does indeed produce more complex things from less complex ones.

But it's a different God, I suspect, from the one that you, with your rather shallow faith, would be prepared to believe in.

Please forgive the interruption, but I thought a mention of the Bible might not go amiss at this point...

John 1 points to Jesus Christ as the One Who created and then became flesh. (John 1:3,14) This Easter weekend reminds us that this same Christ died on the Cross to pay for our sin, and then rose from death 3 days later, confirming His claim to be the Son of God.

Since the New Testament links all these together (see Colossians 1:14 - 20) I think it would be good idea to pause from the heavy stuff for a while, and consider Christ Himself and what He can do for individuals who trust in Him.

Tomorrow is Easter Sunday, and mutiplied millions of Christians will together joyfully affirm: 'HE IS RISEN!'

At times we can be lost in argument - don't miss the opportunity to be 'lost in wonder, love and praise'!

PP
Also at this time of the year not forgetting Matthew 27, 52-53, Dawn of the Dead:
"THEY ARE RISEN!"

Just for you PastaPhilip,

https://www.rail-bender.com/2012/04/he-is-risen.html

pastorphilip (@ 97) -

Many thanks for your comment, and reminder as to what we are celebrating: that life is not about mindlessly fabricated biological machines heading for oblivion (the delusion constantly peddled by those who think that nature is merely a closed system - and who can't see the absurd implications of that), but that we have a glorious purpose and future through the person and work of Jesus Christ.

It doesn't surprise me that your detractors have nothing better to do than to respond to your encouraging comment with juvenile remarks - rather than either putting a sensible challenge or just ignoring it in the spirit of freedom of speech (which I suspect they cannot really tolerate for Christians anyway).

Have a blessed Easter (although it is now rather late in the day!)