Sounds like it has potential. I'm signing up for it.
Monk in the World: Free E-Course « Abbey of the Arts
Stupid Skeptic Tricks
Thanks to Russell for this one, which he brings up in the context of the discussion of the paranormal. I think I've seen these before in the context of, well, other things.
Of course, some people may want to argue about whether these are really stupid.
Of course, some people may want to argue about whether these are really stupid.
THE WIKILEAKERS
THERE IS A SIMPERING FAGGOTTY AUSTRALIAN SISSY SOMEWHERE ON THE FACE OF THIS PLANET WHO DESIRES TO BRING THE uNITED sTATES DOWN. This asshole is the founder of "WikiLeaks", the website which has dumped thousands of pages of classified United States government correspondence into the public domain.
We are quite sure you have heard of this siituation.
Long story short: Mr. "WikiLeaks" needs to be found dead in some public place where he wil be discovered by some jogger; with his genitals cut off and stuffed in his fucking mouth with his tiny dick sticking out.
Hey, CIA. I volunteer for the job. Let's talk about it.......
We are quite sure you have heard of this siituation.
Long story short: Mr. "WikiLeaks" needs to be found dead in some public place where he wil be discovered by some jogger; with his genitals cut off and stuffed in his fucking mouth with his tiny dick sticking out.
Hey, CIA. I volunteer for the job. Let's talk about it.......
Spelling Bees, Violin Teachers, and ESP
When I was in the seventh grade, I won the District Spelling Bee. The defending champion, somewhat to my surprise, went out when there were six people left, stomped off the stage, and went crying to his mother. After winning the Bee (and qualifying for the state finals), I was asked to provide a picture for the newspaper. As it happened, my violin teacher had a Polaroid camera, and my parents and I knew this, so we visited him. He told me that he had been thinking about my spelling bee, and at one point had an awareness that my rival had gone down, and that he was very upset about it. He had this awareness at about the time when my rival went down. He said that he had sometimes had episodes of clairvoyance.
It wasn't something that he said came from God. It's not something that supports my religious beliefs, especially. But I have often thought back to this incident. How did he know? Should you be skeptical of my report now, since this doesn't seem to be something that happens in the ordinary course of nature?
It wasn't something that he said came from God. It's not something that supports my religious beliefs, especially. But I have often thought back to this incident. How did he know? Should you be skeptical of my report now, since this doesn't seem to be something that happens in the ordinary course of nature?
The Case Against Frequentism
From my Infidels paper on miracles.
IV. Probability and its Empirical Foundations
According to Hume, probabilistic beliefs concerning the intentions of a supernatural being are inadmissible in reasonings concerning matters of fact because these beliefs fail to be grounded in experience. This insistence has been enunciated by Bayesian theorists, and it is the frequency theory. But the frequency theory has fallen on hard times, and most Bayesian theorists do not accept it, largely because of difficulties related to the problem of the single case.The problem is this. Frequencies give us information as to how often event-types have occurred in the past. But we often want to know the probability of particular events: this coin-toss, this horse-race, this piece of testimony to the miraculous, etc. If we are to accept Hume's conclusion that testimony to the miraculous ought never to be accepted, we need to show more than just that rejecting testimony to miracles in general is a good idea because false miracle claims outnumber true ones. Many Christians are skeptical of miracle claims put forward by televangelists, but nonetheless believe that the evidence in support of the resurrection of Jesus, and perhaps in support of some modern miracles, is sufficient to overthrow our ordinary presumption against accepting miracle reports.
Frequentists have attempted to assess the prior probability of individual purported events by assimiliating them some class of events. Thus, we assess the probability of a particular coin-toss as 1/2 in virtue of its membership in the class of coin-tosses. But the question is which class the relevant reference class is. The claimed resurrection of Jesus falls into many classes: into the class of miracles, into the class of events reported in Scripture, the class of events reported by Peter, the class of events believed by millions to have occurred, into the class of events basic to the belief-system of a religion, etc. Of course it is what is at issue between orthodox Christians and their opponents whether the class of miracles in the life of Jesus is empty or relatively large.
Wesley Salmon attempts to solve this problem by defining the conception of an epistemically homogeneous reference class. A class is homogenous just in case so far as we know it cannot be subdivided in a statistically relevant way. Thus, according to Salmon, if Jackson hits .322 overall but hits .294 on Wednesdays, the Wednesday statistic is not to be treated as relevant unless we know something about Wednesday that makes a difference as to how well Jackson will bat. Thus, according to Salmon, the relevant reference class is the largest homogeneous reference class; we should try to get a sample as large as we can without overlooking a statistically relevant factor.[13]
There are two difficulties with this method as an attempt to satisfy Hume's strong empiricist requirements for properly grounded probability judgments. First, questions of statisical relevance cannot be fully adjucated by appeal to frequencies. Second, the very heuristic of selecting the largest homogeneous reference class cannot be read off experience.
On the first point, consider the situation of a baseball manager who must choose between allowing Wallace to bat or letting Avery pinch-hit for him. Wallace has an overall batting average of .272, while Avery's is .262. But the pitcher is left-handed, and while Wallace bats .242 against left-handed pitching, Avery bats .302. Nevertheless, the pitcher is Williams, and while Avery is 2-for-10 against Williams, Wallace is 4-for-11. Have these batters faced Williams too few times for this last statistic to count? And can this be straightforwardly determined from experience? What is needed is a judgment call about the relevance of this statistical information, and this judgment cannot simply be read straightforwardly from frequencies. The frequentist's epistemology for probabilistic beliefs, insofar as it is an attempt to conform to empiricist/foundationalist constraints, seems impossible to complete.
On the second point, is the heuristic of selecting the smallest homogeneous reference class justified simply by an appeal to experience? Admittedly it makes a certain amount of common sense. But this attempt to go from a statistical "is" to an epistemological "ought" seems to suffer from with the same (or worse) difficulties that getting "ought" from "is" suffers from in ethics, and here again Hume's empiricist/foundationalist assumptions impose an impossible burden on probability theory.
The frequency theory seems clearly to be the theory of priors that Hume would have adopted had he been involved in the contemporary Bayesian debate on prior probabilities. But even this theory fails to adjudicate the issue concerning miracles in Hume's favor or in favor of the defenders of miracles, because it lacks the resources within itself to select the appropriate reference class. This inability to provide determinate answers to questions of probability is what makes this theory inadequate for resolving the question of miracles. Therefore Hume cannot justify his claim that it is never rational to believe testimony to any miracle on the grounds that miracles are less frequent in experience than false miracle reports.[14]
13] Salmon, The Foundations of Scientific Inference (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1967), pp. 90-93.
[14] These objections were suggested to me by in conversation by Patrick Maher.
Berkeley's arguments against matter
Can Berkeley be refuted? Lewis said that his arguments were unanswerable.
We Know Who
How many of us have taken road trips with small children? What is the universal question all children ask? “Are we there yet?” It might as well be an eternity before they arrive at grandma and grandpa’s or whatever the destination.
I don’t like to wait either. When Ray and I are on a long trip, we have our GPS on the dash and it displays our expected arrival time at our destination. I must admit that I get a certain pleasure if traffic is moving along and we’re making good time and seeing the time get earlier, even by a minute or two.
This is one type of waiting, but there are other kinds that are not as pleasant. It’s not easy to wait for medical test results, especially if something is wrong. We worry and are scared of the unknown. If we can at least name it, we can begin to deal with it. It is the unknown that is so hard to handle.
Early in this chapter of the gospel, when the disciples were alone with Jesus, they asked him when the end times would come. I think of the small children asking, “Are we there yet?” They were looking for the glorious reign of God that would end the Roman occupation of their land. They wanted the king to come. Jesus responds to their question by talking about wars, false messiahs, signs of the end of the age, coming persecutions, the coming of the Son of Man, and then today’s passage. I don’t think this is the answer they were looking for. I don’t think it’s the answer we’re looking for either.
Can we live with not knowing? Can we live in mystery? Jesus said that no one knows when his return will be, except the Father. Look how many times not knowing is used in this passage. The Son does not know when these things will happen. In Noah’s day, the people knew nothing until the flood came. Jesus’ audience did not know when the Lord is coming. The owner of the house, did not know when the thief would come. This is a lot of not knowing.
The people of Noah’s time were just living their lives like we are: eating, drinking, getting married, and working—there is nothing inherently wrong with any of these things. These are normal everyday activities. It’s not the actions per se, but the place of importance they take in our lives. Is there room for God? In Noah’s day, the people were too preoccupied with these things to hear the warning God issued through Noah. They knew nothing until the cataclysmic flood came. Then they understood that their lives would never be the same.
When our Lord returns, we will still be living our lives. Men will be working. Women will be working. Jesus speaks of one being taken and one left behind. We don’t know if the one taken is taken off to judgment and the one left behind is the faithful one or vice versa. It’s not clear from the text alone and scholars don’t agree. It’s another one of those “we don’t know” things, another mystery. And it really doesn’t matter because as many unknowns as we have before us, Jesus’ message is to be ready.
The final verse in this passage neatly sums up the gist of our entire gospel lesson for today, “you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an unexpected hour.” It doesn’t matter when or how Jesus comes, if he returns as glorious king in our lifetime, or if he comes for us as we close our eyes in death.
God isn’t asking us to suspend our daily lives to sit and wait for Jesus to return. We are still supposed to work, eat, and live. The Lutheran Study Bible says that watching and being ready have “surprisingly simple” meanings. “Faithfully carry out the tasks set before you [as the verses following today’s gospel reading demonstrate] and use the gifts God gives you wisely and faithfully.”
So, what DO we know? Jesus is coming. And if we are in relationship with him, we know this grace filled savior who is coming. We know his nature, his faithfulness.
We don’t know the how. We don’t know the when. We do know the who. With our confidence in Jesus who knows us and loves us best, maybe we can live with the unknowns.
One commentator writes:
We may never know when we may encounter the living God waiting for us around the next bend. Indeed, each unexpected meeting, each moment of holy surprise, is but an anticipation of the great climax of all human history and longing, when the world, seemingly spinning along in ceaseless tedium, will find itself gathered into the extravagant mercy of God (Thomas Long, Matthew, Westminster Bible Companion).
Do you realize that this falling into God’s extravagant mercy happens every week? It happens every time we gather here around the table. Jesus comes to us as in Word and Sacrament, in Holy Communion. If Jesus is part of our lives now, his “coming” shouldn’t surprise us. We already know his voice and we hear his message.
Google image
Google image
THANKSGIVING 2010
NO AMERICAN PUBLICATION WORTHY OF THE TITLE WOULD LET THE THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY PASS WITHOUT SOME ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE OCCASION. WE HERE AT THE ALEXANDRIA DAILY POOP HOPE YOU WERE ABLE TO SPEND THE DAY WITH LOVED ONES AND ENGAGE IN THE TRADITIONAL FEASTING.
As for us, our parents have passed on, and the family is scattered, so we dined on a rather overpriced buffet and are about to turn on a football game and fall asleep watching it. Tradition, don't you know.
While we have much to be thankful for - among them the outcome of the recent elections - we find that we are most thankful for our woes and ills, our heartaches and our pains. Not so much because we enjoy the effects of these things, but rather that the particular basket of trials we have been subjected to is not the worst possible by a long shot. As the saying goes. I was sad because I had no shoes until I met an man who had no feet.
(What the saying doesn't tell you is the man with no feet lost his feet due to frostbite, because he didn't have any shoes, but whatever.)
Happy Thanksgiving.
As for us, our parents have passed on, and the family is scattered, so we dined on a rather overpriced buffet and are about to turn on a football game and fall asleep watching it. Tradition, don't you know.
While we have much to be thankful for - among them the outcome of the recent elections - we find that we are most thankful for our woes and ills, our heartaches and our pains. Not so much because we enjoy the effects of these things, but rather that the particular basket of trials we have been subjected to is not the worst possible by a long shot. As the saying goes. I was sad because I had no shoes until I met an man who had no feet.
(What the saying doesn't tell you is the man with no feet lost his feet due to frostbite, because he didn't have any shoes, but whatever.)
Happy Thanksgiving.
Thankful For or To?
The text is John 6:25-35.
Some of us have memories of wonderful family gatherings at Thanksgiving, like you would see in a Norman Rockwell picture. Among the memories, may be that of going around the table with everyone saying what they are thankful for. It’s a lovely tradition. Those are not among my memories of Thanksgiving growing up, however. My family was not religious and didn’t go to church. It wasn’t even much of a special day when I was a child, except that we ate different food.
As we gather around our tables tomorrow, what are we looking forward to? What makes Thanksgiving special for us? Is it for the special food that we so rarely have—pumpkin pie, turkey, homemade stuffing? Or is it the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade earlier in the day? Or is your favorite part the football games in the afternoon? Maybe a nap? Maybe you’re just delighted to be with friends or family once again and to share God’s blessings with them.
Thankfulness however isn’t what the crowd in the first verse of the gospel reading is about. These are the same people who were fed earlier in the gospel when Jesus fed the 5,000. These are not Jesus’ disciples even though they are physically following him. Jesus makes their motives clear. They followed Jesus so that he would feed them again.
The crowd just didn’t get it. In this passage there are a couple of different contrasts. The first contrast is the food that perishes versus the food that endures to eternal life. The crowd is concerned about filling their bellies and nothing more. They are short sighted, not seeing that there is more to life than just the food on the table.
The second contrast is food that one works for versus food that Jesus, gives. The crowd keeps misunderstanding what Jesus is talking about. They want to keep on working for that which is a gift—to earn it rather than receive it.
As Americans, we are fiercely independent and most of us have a good, solid work ethic. We believe in working for what we get. It can be difficult for us to ask for help if we need it. This independence can sometimes get us into trouble, especially with God. No matter how hard we try, we cannot work to receive grace, work to get God’s gifts. Jesus presents himself as the gift of the bread of life, and we, like the crowd, want to earn it, to do something to get it, rather than simply acknowledging our helplessness and receiving this gift. What about all the work we do in the kitchen to feed our families a wonderful, traditional Thanksgiving dinner? Why do we do it? For many of us, doesn’t it boil down to wanting to please our families, to hear the awwws, to see their faces light up as they see the turkey, taste our special dishes? We enjoy our families’ joy at the gift we have given of our time and talents for this gathering, even though it is a lot of work.
Jesus in this passage emphasizes God’s work as opposed to our work. “Work of God” is what God does for and in us. The crowd keeps wanting to have control rather than letting God do the work. It’s hard for them and us to let go and let God be God. We cannot control him or what he does. We cannot domesticate him. It’s hard to let go of our desire to be in charge.
Jesus is calling us into relationship with him in a new and dangerous way. If we really let God take complete control and do what he wants, there’s no telling where that will take us. Jesus wants us to make that relationship with him as vital and real as a loaf of bread, as the very food that nourishes our bodies, as the wonderful food we’ll eat tomorrow. If that connection with Jesus is that tangible and real, then he will satisfy our hunger in ways that are beyond physical food. We have deeper hungers and thirsts than mere bread can satisfy. We are more than physical beings. We have emotions, the need to love and be loved, the need to be accepted, the need of friendship and companionship. We have psychological needs. Jesus is the food that takes care of our whole being—physical, emotional, and spiritual.
Let’s turn our thoughts again to the table we will be gathering around tomorrow. It is good to be thankful for all of our blessings. But that’s not enough. Let’s take it one step further; it’s not so much WHAT we are thankful for, but who do we give thanks to? Are we giving thanks for our own effort or for God’s gracious gift of the Lord Jesus Christ?
Let us pray:
Almighty God, we thank you for your goodness to us and to all that you have made. We praise you for all the blessings of life. Give us an awareness of your blessings. Help us to realize that these blessings are a gift from you and not something that we earn. Amen.
Two Jacks and an Aldous
I have one minute to get in my commemoration of the lives of Two Jacks and an Aldous, who passed away on November 22, 1963.
Christ the King Holds Us Together
This is the message I preached this morning at Zion Lutheran Church, Baker, WV.
Text: Col 1:11-20
Being a part of our household can be quite an adventure and you just never know where it may lead. Those who know me well know I am not the most graceful or coordinated person. Inanimate objects in our home also suffer the consequences of getting bumped, knocked over, dropped, and sometimes broken. We keep a good supply of duct tape, glue, and other adhesives in stock. Things can be repaired or replaced. Super Glue is a wonderful invention.
But what about our hearts, our emotions, our families, our church? It is not so easy to fix them. Super Glue is fine for things, but what about OUR brokenness?
We all have circumstances we encounter in life. Sometimes it just becomes too much and we feel hopeless. And we wonder where God is in all of it. It just isn’t supposed to happen like that. Parents lose a child. A long marriage dissolves in the pain of divorce. The poet William Butler Yeats expressed this feeling in these words, “…Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold…” (William Butler Yeats, The Second Coming).
Today is Christ the King Sunday, the last Sunday in the church year. As Americans, we may find it difficult to relate to the idea of a king. Kings aren’t part of our culture like they are in some countries. I would like to focus on the reading from Colossians.
It begins as a prayer for the Colossians and I believe it is one we can claim for ourselves as well. We may feel weak as individuals, as a church. We may wonder where all this will end? Hear this good news:
11 May you be made strong with all the strength that comes from his glorious power, and may you be prepared to endure everything with patience, while joyfully 12 giving thanks to the Father, who has enabled you to share in the inheritance of the saints in the light.
This strength comes from God’s glorious power, which never refers to simply human power in the New Testament. It is God’s power that strengthens us, not our own. God has prepared us to endure.
This life can be a struggle for us. But in Christ, we have an inheritance. We are children of God and our God has given us a great heritage.
Following the prayer, we are shown just who this Jesus is that we follow. He is our redeemer, the one who has delivered us from “sin, death, and the power of the devil” as Luther wrote in the Small Catechism. He has set us free.
Jesus is also creator of all things in heaven and earth, seen and unseen. The emphasis throughout the passage is on what God has done, not on what we have to do.
Jesus is first—the firstborn of all creation, the firstborn from the dead, first place in everything. As one theologian says, “He is first in priority, before all things…first in importance, beyond all things…first in rank, above all things… first in origin, source of all things…first in order, ahead of all things…” (Audrey L. S. West, New Proclamation). This isn’t saying, “My Savior’s better than yours,” but rather nothing exists anywhere outside of Christ’s domain.
Now as wonderful as all this is it gets better. Do any of you remember hearing in science class about “cosmic glue”? It is that invisible substance that holds the worlds together. According to an article I read, now there is even a race among scientists to detect traces of this invisible cosmic glue. As Christians, we already know what this cosmic glue is. It is Jesus Christ, the creator of the universe. Jesus not only creates and redeems us, but holds all of creation and us together.
Have you ever seen old photo albums where the pictures were glued onto the pages? What happens over time? The glue dries, the pictures drop off, and everything is all mixed up. It’s a mess. Thankfully, Jesus isn’t like that. Jesus, the cosmic super glue does not dry up, die, or fail. He continues forever to hold all things together. Christ brings creation and us to be in a “condition of [unity to] continue, [to] endure, [to] exist, and hold together" (BDAG). There have been times in my life when I was desperate--when my family was having financial difficulties, when I had a knee injury and was out of work for a year. I didn’t know how I would cope, how I would go on. Jesus held me together. He held my family together. It’s like the old song says, “He’s got the whole world in his hands…”
That’s nice, but what is God’s objective in all of this? The heart of everything is summed up in the final verse, “through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross.”
There is hope for us because of who Jesus is and what he has done. This is just the time we need to celebrate Christ the King and his reign in our lives.
Listen to the way The Message translation expresses our hope:
He was supreme in the beginning and—leading the resurrection parade—he is supreme in the end. From beginning to end he's there, towering far above everything, everyone. So spacious is he, so roomy, that everything of God finds its proper place in him without crowding. Not only that, but all the broken and dislocated pieces of the universe—people and things, animals and atoms—get properly fixed and fit together in vibrant harmonies, all because of his death, his blood that poured down from the cross.
Let us pray:
Christ our King, we bring our brokenness to you. As the glue that holds everything together, we ask you to fix and heal us. Fit us together in vibrant harmonies of your love and use us to your glory. Amen.
WHERE DO WE BEGIN?
Honestly, dear readers, so much has been happening recently that we have been having a hard time figuring out what to comment on. Not only that, but by the time we have found time to issue a post, the situation has taken a new twist. Fourteen hours of driving a taxi for a living leaves us precious little time, so right now we are going to try to play a little catchup on the following:
DEMOCRAT REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES RANGEL, who was recommended for censure; who stood in the House Well and tearfully begged mercy from his colleagues. This from the man who has for years written the Nation's tax laws as head of what they like to call "the powerful House Ways and Means Committee". (The Obamacare bill by the way originated in that committee, and - just as we predicted in this Blog - now that the "individual mandate" is being challenged in court as an abuse of the "Interstate Commerce Clause", the Ratz are indeed trying to cite the taxing power of the Congress as their authority for it.) But the tax laws he burdened the common citizen with were not for him, or so he thought. Censured? He should be arrested.
AIRPORT SECURITY SEARCHES, which entail the choice of either having someone being able to see your naked body (while being zapped with X-rays into the bargain) OR being felt up most intimately. This is done to ordinary schmoes in the name of preventing reliance on "profiling". How singling someone out because he or she exhibits a certain pattern of characteristics and/or behaviors is worse than letting an adult stranger feel around a 12-year-old kid's genitals sure does beat us, but sundry government officials assure us that this is indeed the case. Sounds like BULLSHIT to us.
DEFUNDING PUBLIC BROADCASTING is an idea whose time has come. NPR's infamous firing of Juan Williams was the last straw for most of us, but more than that; "Non-Commercial Public Broadcasting" has for years been running what are in- all-but-name advertisments for various businesses, complete with short descriptions of their products. Common citizens are acknowledged as "viewers like you". Which is strange, since viewers like me flip the channel when they start begging for money. Let 'em sink or swim like everybody else.
DEMOCRAT REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES RANGEL, who was recommended for censure; who stood in the House Well and tearfully begged mercy from his colleagues. This from the man who has for years written the Nation's tax laws as head of what they like to call "the powerful House Ways and Means Committee". (The Obamacare bill by the way originated in that committee, and - just as we predicted in this Blog - now that the "individual mandate" is being challenged in court as an abuse of the "Interstate Commerce Clause", the Ratz are indeed trying to cite the taxing power of the Congress as their authority for it.) But the tax laws he burdened the common citizen with were not for him, or so he thought. Censured? He should be arrested.
AIRPORT SECURITY SEARCHES, which entail the choice of either having someone being able to see your naked body (while being zapped with X-rays into the bargain) OR being felt up most intimately. This is done to ordinary schmoes in the name of preventing reliance on "profiling". How singling someone out because he or she exhibits a certain pattern of characteristics and/or behaviors is worse than letting an adult stranger feel around a 12-year-old kid's genitals sure does beat us, but sundry government officials assure us that this is indeed the case. Sounds like BULLSHIT to us.
DEFUNDING PUBLIC BROADCASTING is an idea whose time has come. NPR's infamous firing of Juan Williams was the last straw for most of us, but more than that; "Non-Commercial Public Broadcasting" has for years been running what are in- all-but-name advertisments for various businesses, complete with short descriptions of their products. Common citizens are acknowledged as "viewers like you". Which is strange, since viewers like me flip the channel when they start begging for money. Let 'em sink or swim like everybody else.
Basic Fairness, Unbelief by Default, and the OTF
John: I never said this was simply a debate between Christianity and atheism. These are probably the leading options in our culture, and so sometimes you have to debate one issue at a time.
The website that I have been discussing with respect to the Outsider Test was a site in which Christianity and Islam were compared. To give the short answer to Arizona Atheist, the site may not itself be completely even-handed between those two religions, but the evidence it provides in the area of documentary evidence and of archaeological evidence, shows that the evidential situation with respect to each religion is different, and that Christianity has some advantages that Islam lacks. So an "outsider" would clearly, I think, rate the evidential situation for Christianity better than Islam. Someone coming in with the same level of skepticism for each religion could pick Christianity. And since I don't think any other books can match the Bible or the Qu'ran on those criteria, the case could be made for Christianity as opposed to all other faiths. With some religions I'm not sure they even have apologetics.
As I said, the OTF is an onion. On one layer there is what we might call the Basic Fairness Doctrine, that says we shouldn't try to give other religions as fair a treatment as we give our own. We should attempt to compare, as fairly as we can, the believability of religions. To use McGrew's terms, this is the heuristic use of the OTF, and I don't object. However, such fairness isn't easy, but we all have to work on it. It means making sure that we are looking at the inconvenient truths for whatever view we adopt, and it applies generally to Christians, Muslims, atheists, Buddhists, etc.
However, as the OTF is typically presented, it attempts to give a kind of special default status to the denial of religion, and in doing so it starts to engage in anti-religious special pleading. Then we start getting the diagnostic use of the OTF, where we look at what we think is true in the area of, say, Biblical studies, and then we conclude that anyone who comes out a believer somehow isn't performing the duties prescribed in the "heuristic" side of the OTF.
When I give my more detailed response to Arizona Atheist, I am going to look at an argument by Robert Price, and ask whether anybody could possibly take that argument seriously who was not infected with what I would call a hostility bias toward the New Testament.
You like to bring up psychological and sociological evidence suggesting that, epistemologically, we're all sinners. Fine. But then you presume that you can become a saint just by rejecting religion, as if confirmation bias comes to an end once you get out the church door and leave the fold. Not fine.
The website that I have been discussing with respect to the Outsider Test was a site in which Christianity and Islam were compared. To give the short answer to Arizona Atheist, the site may not itself be completely even-handed between those two religions, but the evidence it provides in the area of documentary evidence and of archaeological evidence, shows that the evidential situation with respect to each religion is different, and that Christianity has some advantages that Islam lacks. So an "outsider" would clearly, I think, rate the evidential situation for Christianity better than Islam. Someone coming in with the same level of skepticism for each religion could pick Christianity. And since I don't think any other books can match the Bible or the Qu'ran on those criteria, the case could be made for Christianity as opposed to all other faiths. With some religions I'm not sure they even have apologetics.
As I said, the OTF is an onion. On one layer there is what we might call the Basic Fairness Doctrine, that says we shouldn't try to give other religions as fair a treatment as we give our own. We should attempt to compare, as fairly as we can, the believability of religions. To use McGrew's terms, this is the heuristic use of the OTF, and I don't object. However, such fairness isn't easy, but we all have to work on it. It means making sure that we are looking at the inconvenient truths for whatever view we adopt, and it applies generally to Christians, Muslims, atheists, Buddhists, etc.
However, as the OTF is typically presented, it attempts to give a kind of special default status to the denial of religion, and in doing so it starts to engage in anti-religious special pleading. Then we start getting the diagnostic use of the OTF, where we look at what we think is true in the area of, say, Biblical studies, and then we conclude that anyone who comes out a believer somehow isn't performing the duties prescribed in the "heuristic" side of the OTF.
When I give my more detailed response to Arizona Atheist, I am going to look at an argument by Robert Price, and ask whether anybody could possibly take that argument seriously who was not infected with what I would call a hostility bias toward the New Testament.
You like to bring up psychological and sociological evidence suggesting that, epistemologically, we're all sinners. Fine. But then you presume that you can become a saint just by rejecting religion, as if confirmation bias comes to an end once you get out the church door and leave the fold. Not fine.
Two Offerings from Rene Vilatte Press
Our jurisdiction's publishing concern, Rene Vilatte Press, has two offerings which might be of interest to readers.
First, our subdeacon Michael Shirk has put together Evensong for Sapientiatide, the period of the O Antiphons from December 16 through 23 in preparation for Christmas, according to the Sarum Use. He has done a beautiful job of designing a pleasing book with chant notation, to inspire those who wish to pray the traditional Vespers for this holy time in the church's year. Here is the link to purchase: http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/evensong-for-sapientiatide/6107531
Second, we have just issued the official Catechism of the Independent Catholic Christian Church. It is a revision of the Catechism from the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, with some additional questions to reflect our own doctrinal heritage. There is a helpful article by Fr. Joseph Menna, AIHM, on what it means to be Independent Catholic Christian, as well as various documents from the church's history, including the historic creeds. Here is the link to purchase the Catechism: http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/catechism-of-the-independent-catholic-christian-church/13623131
We will have a couple of reprints of historic IC/OC liturgies available in a few weeks as well.
First, our subdeacon Michael Shirk has put together Evensong for Sapientiatide, the period of the O Antiphons from December 16 through 23 in preparation for Christmas, according to the Sarum Use. He has done a beautiful job of designing a pleasing book with chant notation, to inspire those who wish to pray the traditional Vespers for this holy time in the church's year. Here is the link to purchase: http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/evensong-for-sapientiatide/6107531
Second, we have just issued the official Catechism of the Independent Catholic Christian Church. It is a revision of the Catechism from the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, with some additional questions to reflect our own doctrinal heritage. There is a helpful article by Fr. Joseph Menna, AIHM, on what it means to be Independent Catholic Christian, as well as various documents from the church's history, including the historic creeds. Here is the link to purchase the Catechism: http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/catechism-of-the-independent-catholic-christian-church/13623131
We will have a couple of reprints of historic IC/OC liturgies available in a few weeks as well.
J. P. Moreland and A. C. Ewing on the Argument from Reason
If reasoning is to be possible, there has to be a metaphysically identical being that entertains the premise-thoughts and the conclusion-thought, and perceives the relation between the premises and the conclusion.
JPM: If human beings are to function are rational thinkers who can engage in rational deliberation, then not only must there be a unified self at each time in a deliberative sequence, but also an identical self that endures through the rational act. Consider A. C. Ewing’s argument:
JPM: If human beings are to function are rational thinkers who can engage in rational deliberation, then not only must there be a unified self at each time in a deliberative sequence, but also an identical self that endures through the rational act. Consider A. C. Ewing’s argument:
To realize the truth of any proposition or even entertain it as something meaningful the same being must be aware of its different constituents. To be aware of the validity of an argument the same being must entertain premises and conclusion; to compare two things the same being must, at least in memory, be aware of them simultaneously; and since all these processes take some time the continuous existence of literally the same entity is required. In these cases an event which consisted in the contemplating of A followed by another event which consisted in the contemplating of B is not sufficient. They must be events of contemplating that occur in the same being. If one being thought of wolves, another of eating, and another of lambs, it certainly would not mean that anybody contemplated the proposition `wolves eat lambs’…There must surely be a single being persisting through the process to grasp a proposition or inference as a whole.”
If the conclusion of a syllogism is to be grasped as a conclusion, it must be drawn from the experiences of each premise singularly and, then, together. As Ewing notes, a successive series of I-stages cannot engage in such acts; only an enduring I can. Moreover, if the rational agent who embraces the conclusion is to be regarded as intellectually responsible for his reasoning, it must be the same self at the end of the process as the self who lived through the stages of reasoning that led to drawing the conclusion. One is not responsible for the acts of others or of other person-stages. So intellectual responsibility seems to presuppose an enduring I. But on the naturalist view, I am a collection of parts such that if I gain and lose parts, I am literally a different aggregate from one moment to the next. Thus, there is no such enduring I that could serve as the unifier of rational thought on a naturalist view.
Science without methodological naturalism
Robert Delfino thinks that methodological naturalism is a dogma that science can do without. That doesn't mean that ID works, only that it can't be thrown out at the outset. Looks pretty good on first read-through.
The Outsider Test, Onions, and Inconvenient Truths
The outsider test is kind of like an onion. On the outer layer, there is a legitimate appeal to be fair to opposing views, to counteract bias, etc. At that level it operates as a kind of golden rule for beliefs. So it is sometimes helpful to imagine yourself as an outsider to your religion, treating it with the same kind of skepticism with which you treat other religion.
But if it is restricted to religions, then people who are not within a religion get an automatic pass, since it isn't hard for an atheist to say he is just as skeptical of Christianity as of Islam, since he believes both to be false and delusional. Should atheism get a free pass here? I know a lot of Christians who work very hard at coming to terms with the "inconvenient truths" for the Christian belief system. If you go to a Society of Christian Philosophers meeting, the best-attended session is always the session on the problem of evil. And then I see atheists treating their own view like a slam-dunk, as if there are no inconvenient truths for their world-view. You get the argument that their position is different because it is a non-belief, rather like not collecting stamps. You get the argument that allegiance to science somehow gives them a free pass. It is like pulling teeth to get some people to realize that confirmation bias doesn't stop once you go out the church door and shake the dust off your feet.
And, you get the argument that we can judge who has "really" taken the outsider test, based on whether the one claiming to take the test has reached the same conclusions about religion that the atheist has reached. They say, "This is the conclusion I have reached, I consider it to be true, so if someone comes to an opposing position, it MUST be because of insider bias, of a failure to REALLY take the outsider test." This in the area of biblical scholarship, where there is little consensus, and a lot of presuppositional issues to deal with as well as evidential issues. Here Tim McGrew's distinction between the heuristic and diagnostic uses of the outsider test is important. It isn't the test I object to as the way it ends up being construed, and the idea that atheists can look at their own answer key to test whether someone has really taken the test or not.
I have never seen an overall superiority of atheists to theists in the area of maintaining that constant struggle to come to terms with the inconvenient truths for their own philosophies. If anything, it has always looked to be to be the other way around.
I realize this is not really an answer to the specifics of Arizona Atheists's response to me. I will get to that, I hope, in the next day or two.
But if it is restricted to religions, then people who are not within a religion get an automatic pass, since it isn't hard for an atheist to say he is just as skeptical of Christianity as of Islam, since he believes both to be false and delusional. Should atheism get a free pass here? I know a lot of Christians who work very hard at coming to terms with the "inconvenient truths" for the Christian belief system. If you go to a Society of Christian Philosophers meeting, the best-attended session is always the session on the problem of evil. And then I see atheists treating their own view like a slam-dunk, as if there are no inconvenient truths for their world-view. You get the argument that their position is different because it is a non-belief, rather like not collecting stamps. You get the argument that allegiance to science somehow gives them a free pass. It is like pulling teeth to get some people to realize that confirmation bias doesn't stop once you go out the church door and shake the dust off your feet.
And, you get the argument that we can judge who has "really" taken the outsider test, based on whether the one claiming to take the test has reached the same conclusions about religion that the atheist has reached. They say, "This is the conclusion I have reached, I consider it to be true, so if someone comes to an opposing position, it MUST be because of insider bias, of a failure to REALLY take the outsider test." This in the area of biblical scholarship, where there is little consensus, and a lot of presuppositional issues to deal with as well as evidential issues. Here Tim McGrew's distinction between the heuristic and diagnostic uses of the outsider test is important. It isn't the test I object to as the way it ends up being construed, and the idea that atheists can look at their own answer key to test whether someone has really taken the test or not.
I have never seen an overall superiority of atheists to theists in the area of maintaining that constant struggle to come to terms with the inconvenient truths for their own philosophies. If anything, it has always looked to be to be the other way around.
I realize this is not really an answer to the specifics of Arizona Atheists's response to me. I will get to that, I hope, in the next day or two.
How Fear Can Hamper Growth
Embracing the Universe
Living a spiritual life makes our little, fearful hearts as wide as the universe, because the Spirit of Jesus dwelling within us embraces the whole of creation. Jesus is the Word, through whom the universe has been created. As Paul says: "In him were created all things in heaven and on earth: everything visible and everything invisible - all things were created through him and for him - in him all things hold together" (Collosians 1:16-17). Therefore when Jesus lives within us through his Spirit, our hearts embrace not only all people but all of creation. Love casts out all fear and gathers in all that belongs to God.
Prayer, which is breathing with the Spirit of Jesus, leads us to this immense knowledge.
Share your thoughts on this reflection.
These reflections are taken from Henri J.M. Nouwen's Bread for the Journey.
Join our online book discussion of Reaching Out. Starts November 22nd.
Visit HenriNouwen.org for more inspiration!
Living a spiritual life makes our little, fearful hearts as wide as the universe, because the Spirit of Jesus dwelling within us embraces the whole of creation. Jesus is the Word, through whom the universe has been created. As Paul says: "In him were created all things in heaven and on earth: everything visible and everything invisible - all things were created through him and for him - in him all things hold together" (Collosians 1:16-17). Therefore when Jesus lives within us through his Spirit, our hearts embrace not only all people but all of creation. Love casts out all fear and gathers in all that belongs to God.
Prayer, which is breathing with the Spirit of Jesus, leads us to this immense knowledge.
Share your thoughts on this reflection.
These reflections are taken from Henri J.M. Nouwen's Bread for the Journey.
Join our online book discussion of Reaching Out. Starts November 22nd.
Visit HenriNouwen.org for more inspiration!
Of Saints, Hunters, and Veterans
We had a full day today at Grace. Because of Pr. Larry's involvement last week at another church, we remembered the saints today. That was a the beginning of the service. Each one that had someone they had lost within the last year came forward and lit one of the candles that were on a small table in front of the altar.
Today, for the first time, we had a blessing of hunters. This is something I learned about last year at Bender's Lutheran Church in Biglerville, PA. Pr. Susan McCarthy wrote it and instituted it in that congregation. So, seeing how much it means to the people of Bender's, we thought we would initiate it here as well. An addition to the liturgy was small cards with a prayer and the church's name, location, and date to be carried along while hunting. The cards can also be shared with other hunters.
Something I learned recently from one of our hunters is that there is an organization, Hunters for the Hungry, which enables hunters to share their bounty with those in need. And there is certainly plenty of need in these days.
It was a full day and the service did take a bit longer, but it was good. We remembered those who have gone before us, those who help feed us, and those who help protect us. Our hearts are full..."alleluia, alleluia."
Google pictures