Guest essay by E. Calvin Beisner
As UN officials and climate alarmists worldwide rush toward a global agreement to limit carbon dioxide emissions to fight global warming—an agreement unsupported by sound science and that would harm the poor—the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation announces the release of a petition, Forget ‘Climate Change’, Energy Empowers the Poor and a new supporting YouTube video series, Greener on the Other Side: Climate Alarmism—Facts, Not Fear.
The Petition argues that since climate models are the only reason to fear man-made global warming, and since those models have proven wrong—predicting twice the warming observed, 95% or more predicting more warming than observed, and none predicting the absence of warming over the last 18 years and 8 months—there is no reason to fear. In contrast, current climate change policies hurt those in poverty, reducing or prohibiting access to life-giving energy, and continuing a cycle of poverty and death. Therefore the petition urges the American people and their leaders to repeal current global warming policies, refrain from passing any further policies into law (such as the so called “Clean Power Plan”), and resist any form of global agreement at the U.N. climate summit in December.
“The tremendous reduction in absolute poverty since 1990—from about 50% to under 20% of the human race—has been driven in large part by increasing access to abundant, affordable, reliable energy derived mostly from fossil fuels,” said Cornwall Alliance Founder and National Spokesman Dr. E. Calvin Beisner. “It would be a great tragedy to slow, stop, or reverse that trend in the name of fighting global warming, a phenomenon that is turning out to be much smaller than earlier thought.”
That claim finds support in the 35-part YouTube video series, in which leading climate scientists, economists, energy experts, and other scholars discuss a host of topics ranging from the failures of alarmist climate science to the benefits of rising atmospheric CO2 concentration, the relation between science and religion, climate policy, and economic development for the poor.
In addition to the Petition and YouTube series, Cornwall released An Open Letter on Climate Change to the People, their Local Representatives, the State Legislatures and Governors, the Congress, and the President of the United States of America, signed by hundreds of scholars, detailing why current climate policies are disastrous for global poverty relief efforts, and at a special screening at the Heritage Foundation from noon to 2 p.m. October 21 it will debut a new documentary video, Where the Grass is Greener: Biblical Stewardship vs. Climate Alarmism.
“Pope Francis and President Obama both express strong support for the poor,” Dr. Beisner said, referring to the Pope’s recent talks with Obama, Congress, and the UN General Assembly, “yet both ironically support a policy that has enormous potential to hurt them. The American people need to let them know that’s not what we want.”
Note from Anthony: I’m part of the 35 part YouTube video series, my presentations are here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7In1wU2n5Fk at 1:24ff and 1:37ff
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z82faKD5K6Y at 0:06ff, 0:53ff
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Agree Dahlquist. The first sentence of the letter I am asked to sign gratuitously states “AGW is real”.
AGW is real? I don’t know that (unless they mean that lighting a match is contributing to GW). I don’t think anyone does know it as a fact. They may believe it though. Not the same.
Besides, two paragaphs later they provide evidence that tends to contradict whether “AGW is real”, pointing out out that:
1. There has been no global warming in almost 20 years.
2. Not only was there no warming, but AGW theory says it should have warmed.
3. The models, which are the only way as of now of proving any meaningful AGW exists after all the feedbacks, failed.
But they are still sure AGW is a fact.
I get tired of people trying to appease warmists with a preliminary disengenous gratuitous statement.
JMO.
Oh well, but Cornwall Alliance is a perfect fit on this site.
And trafamadore is a perfect fit for a Scientology blog.
trafamadore,
Do you then, as a known proponent of the warmist side of the climate debate, similarly repudiate the comments of the Pope on climate matters?
Scientology? DBperson, do you really know Scientology at all? Scientology and Cornwall Alliance are both based on superstition. Why is it I know what you going to say next?
traffy, you have no clue about anything.
So tell me, what am I gonna say next?
Take your time, I’ll wait here…
Scientology is based on some made up nonsense by a hack science fiction writer to win a bet.
He won the bet alright, and I suppose if any of the members of the resultant cult are truly believers that the stories that L. Ron Hubbard made up are actually true, then they qualify as superstition.
But I doubt if any of the higher ups in the scam are anything more than con artists milking a lucrative scam for all it is worth.
Menicholas,
You describe a perfect analogy between believers in CAGW like traffy, and believers in Scientology. Both groups are a cult, both are being led by an invisible ring in their nose, and both believe totally in their measurement-free, evidence-free fantasy. Logic, evidence, and rational arguments affect them like rain afffects a duck.
db, there is a difference between scientology and cagw cults. scientology is out to milk the gullible on a perpetual basis. cagw is a murder suicide cult like jim jones’ peoples temple/jonestown and that cult of the purple veil.
I’ve been reading rgb’s protestations above with a certain degree of sympathy and also a modicum of amusement. Methinks you protest too much. Someone really must have done a religious number on you at some point to explain why you’re so wound up. Normally I would pick out bits of what you’ve written and seek to correct them, but I doubt that would be profitable. So … peace and good health to you … live long and prosper … and if you can find it in your heart to do so, please give those of us who disagree with you on some of these “religious matters” at least some credit for having a brain and that we have considered the sorts of things you object to and nevertheless reached different conclusions. =;^)
Naaa, no number run on my head.
And I don’t think you don’t have a brain. Only that I very much doubt that you can defend any belief in an objective specific reality external to and “superior” to the simple objective reality that we all appear to experience, that cannot be measured or observed or proven) in any way that would convince somebody that held it morally reprehensible to believe things — by which I specifically mean assign them the status of “probable truth”, not “amusing or instructive or comforting possibility” — without any objective support. I don’t even care if that superset of observational reality you might believe in contains a God or Gods or Heaven or Hell or the Lord of the Rings Cosmos — I don’t think it is virtuous to believe in multiple universes or superuniverses in an ontology unless and until there is objective empirical support for the belief and in contradiction to competing beliefs capable of explaining the same observations equally well.
That never stops people, even very bright people, from doing so. I suspect that it is a feature of our brains to do so — the natural extension of our greedy pattern matching engine to careless inferences of a reality embedded in something larger where you can just make stuff up without fear of contradiction, supported by pure cognitive dissonance as we seek to cope with the pains of life, aging, and death. It is difficult to accept the proposition that when you die, you die completely and no trace of your awareness remains so that as far as you yourself are concerned you might as well never have been born, with all trace of “you” erased into entropy. But sadly, that’s precisely what science, logic and reason unite in, well, proving not beyond any doubt but certainly beyond any reasonable doubt. It is equally difficult to accept the death of loved ones as being final and irretrievable, even though it is our direct and perfectly consistent experience that it is. It is hard to accept the evidence at face value of an enormous Universe that just Is, without any “purpose”, in which we happen to have evolved as a consequence of its complex internal dynamics, so much so that we invent even larger and more complex Universes where an even less likely superintelligence can provide the “purpose” of designing our own Universe and intelligence.
Even very bright people experience cognitive dissonance, and the very brightest brains imaginable are still terribly flawed (and I include my own in that list, not as one of the brightest but as very definitely flawed). It is because our brains are flawed that we need to be very careful and deliberate in choosing the system we use to support a personal worldview. Accepting errors or unsupported hypotheses as the (probable) truth, even appealing errors or beautiful hypotheses, corrupts one’s entire system of reasoning and can lead one to horribly wrong conclusions. Some of that — a lot of that — we can’t help. But we can certainly do our best not to. Can you possibly defend any religious belief as being the objectively best thing to believe? According to what criteria?
I don’t believe in religion, but I do believe in the virtue of storytelling, as long as both storyteller and listener understand that they are stories, not a supposedly accurate representation of reality.
rgb
Great replies, I will save the discussion for my kids.
I really think they should read your replies some time.
Thanks.
rgb,
I’m not taking sides in this argument, and I am not arguing religion. But it seems to me that the reality we experience is just a thin veneer covering a deeper reality. Almost everything in this universe is invisible to us. We call it ‘dark matter’ for lack of a more specific definition. But all the atoms, stars, galaxies, etc., are only a very small part of our own reality, and we know almost nothing about it.
So it seems presumptuous to assume that ‘reality’ is what we observe around us. Personally, I think it’s turtles all the way down, and we’re only at turtle #1. JMHO.
dbstealey on October 6, 2015 at 5:18 am
– – – – – –
dbstealey,
You bring up interesting stuff to discuss.
Dual metaphysics (dual reality) supporters say there is a perfect true reality that humans cannot know and there is an imperfect reality that is what we observe and we cannot know the perfect true reality by observation and reasoning on the observation. That is Plato and Kant stuff. Dual metaphysics is also used to support an argument for religious beliefs.
Can you spot the crucual intellectually self-refuting aspect of the dual metaphysics supporters?
John
The msm and cagw crowd will ignore the petition or censor the information in the articles. It is the usual thing they do.
Paul Driessen already said this last year:
26 September 2014
Protect the poor – from climate change policies
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/26/protect-the-poor-from-climate-change-policies/
I am in complete agreement with RGB. He and I have had a similar upbringing, strong religious background (Catholic), and I too came to the same, or similar, conclusions later in life once I was free to follow my own study path. Sadly, for me, my former wife, an extremely religious woman, effectively called me the “Devil” and openly stated that all what is written in the Bible is a real and true account of Jesus and God and the making of the Earth and the Heavens. Blind faith!
(Sorry mods for mucking up my e-mail addy. Am going through changes of glasses (Multi-focal), but will be reverting back to single focal lenses tomorrow).
This message would reach so many more eyes and ears (especially those of the Left) if it wasn’t delivered from a religious group. The problem is that religious groups, when given an audience, will never (can never?) miss an opportunity to preach their religion. Faith is a massive rational FAIL, if indeed it is to reason that the appeal is being made. D’oh.
Actually, the rational FAIL is in the use of the ad hominem argument. Furthermore, the Warmunists have welcomed the Pope’s ill-founded message on climate. The skeptic side is not diminished in any way by those with religious views. But “skeptics” who feel the need to bash those with religious views in order to feel better about themselves do indeed diminish the skeptic side of things.
There is a big difference between bashing the people who hold irrational beliefs, and bashing the beliefs.
I don’t imagine rgb takes any joy in bashing irrational beliefs, nor do I imagine it makes him feel better about himself.
For myself, my life would be much easier if I could believe in the magical beings that most of my relatives, family, and friends believe in. My unbelief makes my life much harder. However, once it becomes clear to the rational mind that there are no winged sky fairies, no magical all powerful creator, no after life, and no forces beyond the natural universe, there is no going back. Once freed of superstition, the rational mind can no longer sit in pew and shut down the arbitrary irrationality of the priest, the alter, the sacrifice… it becomes impossible to view the world through the lens of superstition.
Like rgb, I’ve read the Bible cover to cover. I was raised in a very strict Catholic family. I am now an atheist. It has been years and years of struggle to come to grips with my unbelief. It did not go quietly or easily. And I miss the belief, because of the community and general feeling of belonging.
However, since being freed of superstition, I have become aware of the real beauty of the world. It is much more precious because there is no after life, only the here and now, only a single chance to explore and make a difference. There is real beauty in living things, and the beauty shines even brighter when you realize that the living thing is not created by a magical being.
For those who think religion is necessary to treasure life and accept death, here are thoughts infinitely more valuable and comforting, because they are true:
“We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of the Sahara. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here. We privileged few, who won the lottery of birth against all odds, how dare we whine at our inevitable return to that prior state from which the vast majority have never stirred?”
I am much more skeptical of those things we think we know from some observations than I am of those things one figures out by considering real tested phyical phenomena and the beliefs these can lead to regarding spirituality. Much of quantum mechanics and particle physics has been proven to staistically significant levels in the laboratory but is still more mystical, in some regards, than some spiritual beliefs. The particle/wave nature of matter, the behavior of entangled particles and the probabilistic nature of what we consider to be reality are a few examples. In some ways these things take a type of “faith” to believe. But they are, so far as we presently know, facts. One can add to these, time dilatation and a great deal of general relativity. Dark matter, dark energy, inflation, not so much, as they are in my estimation, much more theoretical in nature, less proven and very convenient to making the numbers work.
When one considers these things visa vi spiritual concepts, as well as the perfection of the physical quantities and their relationships which allow the universe to be what it is, spirituality, a creator, and another level of existence is not much of a stretch of faith. Religions may in fact get in the way as they invariably try to have all of the answers.
“I am much more skeptical of those things we think we know from some observations”
The term knowledge is largely misused, we tend to think we know things from what we observe.
However, there are a few things which separates real knowledge from beliefs:
– Ideas which allows everything explains nothing, such ideas cannot be regarded as knowledge.
– Knowledge is characterized by the fact that the idea, statement, hypothesis of theory can be proven wrong, it can be tested.
– Necessary consequences can be deduced from ideas we regard as knowledge. It is possible to design repeatable tests, make repeatable observations, to see if these consequences occurs. Not some time in the future but now.
– Ideas we regard as knowledge must also have survived repeatable tests.
– Knowledge is merited by the severity of the tests is has been exposed to and survived, and not at all by inductive reasoning in favor of it.
Believes affects us all. But knowledge is something entirely different. Certain knowledge is characterized by all the things the idea, hypothesis or theory prohibits from happening. Knowledge is what makes us able to say that something will happen and that a lot of other things will not happen.
Enjoy the breathtaking work by a true master. The mastermind behind the modern scientific method, Poppers empirical method – commonly known as the hypothetico deductive method. First section of 26 pages should do:
“The logic of scientific discovery” by Karl Popper
http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/popper-logic-scientific-discovery.pdf
Ah…
Almost straight from the:
“His Dark Materials”
series.
If you haven’t yet, you should definitely read the three book series:
“The Golden Compass”
“The Subtle Knife”
“The Amber Spyglass”
You will find the ideas you just presented glaring back at you.
However, much of what you write as ‘faith’ or ‘belief’ is really simply ‘misunderstanding’ or ‘too specialized’ … rather than ‘spiritual’.
Relativity has definitely proven true. So has quantum mechanics. There are unknowns, of course, but that does not at all mean ‘spirituality’… simply exciting exploration in reality.
Unknown,
The laboratory proven facts of relativity and quantum physics also prove that our perception of reality is quite false. There is a real probability that my fingers are not pressing these touch screen buttons but are passing through them and what I perceive as solid is merely the opposing electrical fields of the atoms in my hands and those of the keyboard. And that is reality.
The absorptive properties of CO2, water vapor, and other such molecules is demonstrable. There is no reasonable science to refute it. But that is also not the argument.
Human caused global warming is concerned with minutia, not physics. Can the 4% of the yearly natural CO2 increase (and in my view much less than 4%) that is said to be related to human use of fossil fuel energy, cause catastrophic irreversible climate and weather pattern change far outside normal extremes? The ONLY model calculations of such a catalyst is in the form of fudge factors, not plausible mechanism. So it is easily refuted by working with minute energy calculations derived from a tiny increase in CO2, within the context of very, very large and highly energetic natural atmospheric energy calculations.
So the opposing argument is this: The comparative energy potential of this tiny, tiny human sourced fraction of a molecular substance mixed into such a large entity, IE the comparative energy of this minutia, causes catastrophic climate and weather pattern change outside of natural extremes.
Laughable.
>Human caused global warming is concerned with minutia, not physics. Can the 4% of the yearly natural CO2 increase (and in my view much less than 4%) that is said to be related to human use of fossil fuel energy, cause catastrophic irreversible climate and weather pattern change far outside normal extremes?
The atmosphere has been modified over eons by life. The small percentages of change in gas flux rates as well as the small percentages of gas liberation from soil and rock *do* change the atmosphere… and change it `permanently` or at least long term temporally.
The argument against CAGW is not that is was/is not plausible or possible – but rather that the gathered real world data to not support the theory/hypothesis.
I was wondering if rgbatduke could provide us with an English translation of Duke’s Latin motto: Eruditio et Religio.
Why does Duke’s motto matter to anyone other than the producers of its letterhead stationary and souvenir sportswear?
Because some people are looking for heroes, saviors, and authorities to judge their actions and remove personal culpability.
These ‘some people’ are actually the majority of people… and why most people cringe in fear rather than think for themselves… That and also because following popularity breeds a bigger bank account or more friends.
None of this nonsense has anything whatsoever to do with whether humans are the A in CAGW. But it has everything to do with the politics… both local [within a personal human relationship] and global [intercontinental agreements and treaties]
I’m all for a petition, and you tube series pointing out the failings of big climate, but does anyone else find it strange that E. Calvin is quoting himself in third person in his own article?
The AGW conjecture is just too flawed to support. For those who believe in the radiant greenhouse effect, the idea is that increases in CO2, because of CO2’s LWIR absorption bands, is suppose to cause an increase in the radiant thermal insulation properties of the troposphere causing a restriction in heat energy flow causing warming at the Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere and cooling in the upper atmosphere because that is how insulation works. The effect is small because there is so little CO2. We are talking just .04%. To make the effect seem more significant the AGW conjecture adds the idea that H2O provides a positive feedback to changes in CO2 because warming causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which causes more warming because H2O is also a greenhouse gas. That is where the AGW conjecture ends but that is not all what happens. Besides being the primary greenhouse gas, H2O is also a major coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere transporting heat energy from the Earth’s surface to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. More heat energy is moved by H2O by phase change then by both convection and LWIR absorption band radiation combined. Then one must also consider clouds and what is happening in the upper atmosphere. When everything is added together the feedback must be negative and not positive. This negative feedback must operate to mitigate any effect that CO2 might have on climate, not increase it. Negative feedback systems are inherently stable as has been the Earth’s climate for at least the past 500 million years, enough for life to evolve. We are here.
A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the action of heat trapping, so called, greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass limits cooling by convection. It is a convective greenhouse effect. So to on Earth. The Earth does not stay warm because of the action of heat trapping greenhouse gases. The surface of the Earth is 33 degrees C warmer than it would otherwise be because gravity limits cooling by convection. It is this convective greenhouse effect, as derived from first principals, that keeps the Earth warm and accounts for all 33 degrees C. There is no room for an additional radiant greenhouse effect. The convective greenhouse effect is evident on all planets in our solar system with thick atmospheres. Even Venus, with an atmosphere that is more than 90 times as massive as the Earth’s and with a CO2 percentage of more than 96%, has no evidence of an additional radiant greenhouse effect. The high temperatures on the surface of Venus can all be accounted for by the planet’s proximity to the sun and the planet’s very thick atmosphere. The AGW conjecture neglects the fact that good absorbers are also good radiators and that heat transfer by convection dominates over heat transfer by radiation in the troposphere. CO2’s LWIR absorption bands do not really add any thermal insulation effect in the troposphere. It is all a matter of physics. If additional CO2 did cause warming then the additional CO2 added to the atmosphere over the past 30 years should have caused at least a noticeable increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. The natural lapse rate is a measure of the insulation properties of the atmosphere. Based upon how changes in CO2 affect the natural lapse rate the climate sensitivity of CO2 can be calculated. Considering how the natural lapse rate of CO2 has changed over the past 30 years, the climate sensitivity of CO2 is 0.0; Hence there are many good reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but climate change is not one of them.
If RGB’s soul survives somehow after his demise, and say he is reincarnated as a polar bear (just for an example) will he write in the snow “I was wrong”? Maybe he can also write in the snow the explanation of infinity, and the infinite universe – where does it end? After you get to the end of the universe what’s on the other side of the “universe wall”?
Unfortunately Skeptical Inquirer has become `unskeptical` in the realm of CAGW…
However, this guy has many of your answers:
http://www.csicop.org/author/victorstenger
Even very smart people are fooled by popularity and untestable feel-good politics.
But, there most surely is no after life, no god, and no reason for life or you. Humans are not ‘for’ anything. Just as any given insect is not ‘for’ anything. Life simply is. It exists. And it changes. And it dies. And it ends. Its beginning may be as lowly as self-replicating interplanetary dust. The creation of an all powerful human-imaged ‘god’ is most definitely an incorrect and egotistical view of the universe.
I do not fear death. I fear indecision, incompetence, and the failure to do my best with the time I have before I become nothing again and fade away into entropy.
But will you start praying (to God) if your airplane is headed down into the ground??
John Whitman,
“And as you have shown in your comment, one can have fun with mythology (religion). Here is comedic poetic mythology of the sacarstic kind.”
I’m pretty sure Alice in Wonderland was not having fun with what is generally called religion, but with quantum physics.
JohnKnight,
Lewis Carroll published ‘Alice in Wonderland’ in 1865. There are dozens of diverse and entertaining interpretations over the last 150 years about what Alice in Wonderland could be seen as signifying. Some of the interpretations were poking fun at religion, some at existentialist philosophy, some at communism, some at the Queen of England, many at political figures, some at Quantum theory when it was proposed circa ~~1900.
Wonderland has many disguises for impossible things, just as mythologies do that, its their stock in trade. Yet mythology is an important function for telling stories that meet some human being needs emotionally and/or psychologically.
John
“Lewis Carroll published ‘Alice in Wonderland’ in 1865.”
Sure, I was just having a bit of fun with the (to me) ever so rationalistical notion that we live in a world where there are firm “scientific” foundations from which to mock religious folks about their sometimes contradictory sounding concepts. We don’t, as quantum physics demonstrates quite clearly, it seems to me. I know of nothing more Alice in Wonderlandish than quantum physics, so I thought I’d remind ya’ll that we all stand on unsure ground, since the quantum level is that ground we all stand on.
unknown502756,
“But, there most surely is no after life, no god, and no reason for life or you. Humans are not ‘for’ anything. Just as any given insect is not ‘for’ anything. Life simply is. It exists. And it changes. And it dies. And it ends.”
I suggest tossing in an occasional “I figure” or something, lest others get the impression you have created an all powerful human-imaged ‘god’, in the form of yourself. It is quite obvious to me that one cannot possibly know such things in any factual sense . . unless there is some sort of God that has informed them . . Don’t you figure?
@JohnKnight:
There is no evidence for anything that could be labeled ‘god’ in any sense that most people who refer to a ‘god’ mean by ‘god’.
Since there has been no evidence, it is far more reasonable to have no belief in ‘god’ than to believe.
Anyone babbling about quantum physics and reality and ‘god’ is well off the topic of a ‘personal god’ who suspends physics for a moment in time for a special Earth bound, human only audience.
Could an individual call the supposed quantum froth ‘god’?… sure… why the heck not. But the ‘god/s’ of any of the most popular religions on the planet surely do not exist.
Furthermore, while there has been no evidence for anything like a ‘personal god’, there are mountains of evidence that point to a non-supernatural universe. Remember that things we don’t understand yet or maybe ever are not supernatural, they are things that are simply not defined thoroughly yet. So, while the universe has not been explained in perfect detail, that lack of perfect explanation is not room for a plausible existence of a ‘god’.
A+UNK does not equal god must be or even could be the explanation…
“There is no evidence for anything that could be labeled ‘god’ in any sense that most people who refer to a ‘god’ mean by ‘god’.
Once again, the lack of any discernible recognition that you are not a God, is going to make it rather easy for me to make you look like at least narcissistic to some considerable extent (which I’d much rather not do, sir).
The Book exists, and is therefor by definition evidence, whether you find it convincing or not. And millions of people have given clear testimonials to experiencing some profoundly “unnatural” events (many in the form of going to their gruesome deaths rather than deny my Lord), whether or not you consider that blatantly existent evidence, convincing.
Try this sort of thing, to avoid appearing like a complete egomaniac, I suggest;
*I have found no evidence that convinces me anything that could be labeled ‘god’ in any sense that most people who refer to a ‘god’ mean by ‘god’, yet*
I realize it lacks the booming voice of ultimate authority your version might seem to provide, but your own beliefs render it utterly impossible to actually know such things, since you’re just a man, and believe there is no God to let you know your impressions are correct.
>The Book exists, and is therefor by definition evidence,
Wait a minute here! What!
There are millions of books.
Gilgamesh is a great story. Perhaps since it exists I should believe in the story as if it were reality.
If you have testable repeatable evidence for the existence of a ‘personal god’, please present it and I will duly give up the argument.
Sorry, the existence of a book that says so… does not qualify for evidence. Nor does the existence of millions or billions of people who believe in a supernatural universe represent a single valid datum for the existence of said supernatural universe.
However, the argument for and against religion will not easily end… nor will the same silly argument of CAGW easily end. The problem with both is the willingness of humans to believe rather than test the universe they exist [or seem to exist] within.
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
I claim the universe is not supernatural. All evidence aggregated over written human history points to this as being true, if one can define something as true.
Others claim the universe has supernatural elements, and some claim the supernatural elements are more and greater and interfere with the the non-supernatural elements. However, there is nothing in human history that leads even a partially critical mind to this version of the universe.
unknown,
“>The Book exists, and is therefor by definition evidence,
Wait a minute here! What!
There are millions of books”
Sure, so there’s obviously much evidence which you declared non-existent. Not a good way to impress critical thinkers, me thinks.
“Perhaps since it exists I should believe in the story as if it were reality.”
Of course not, anymore than one ought to believe something like the CAWG theory, simply because it exists. But not believing in it clearly does nothing to render it non-existent, or non-evidential . .
There are a great many scientific ideas, past and present, but that hardly warrants treating them as all equally valid or invalid, as you seem to be treating all “religious” theories (ostensibly anyway, I don’t believe you actually see Gilgamesh as equally unlikely as something like the Christ story).
“Sorry, the existence of a book that says so… does not qualify for evidence.”
Says some guy on a comment thread. Another guy on the thread says; What the hell do you mean by evidence? Are you just forgetting that evidence does not mean “scientific” proof? I can’t scientifically prove you’re not a God, but I think there’s pretty good evidence for that conclusion, nonetheless. Don’t you?
What if the book is the most influential writing all of history? Does reality itself also not count in your book when assessing whether something qualifies as evidence? And all those people who went to their deaths? And a great many demonstrably critical thinkers (like Mr. Newton for example) obviously considering it Genuine? Why exactly is none of it at least evidence, to your mind? Not scientific proof, mind you, but just evidence.
It appears to me you only consider evidence for what you believe, to qualify a evidence at all. Not a real strong argument for you being a critical thinker, if you ask me, sir. More like a close-minded one.
@JohnKnight:
You wrote:
>What if the book is the most influential writing all of history? Does reality itself also not count in your book when assessing whether something qualifies as evidence? And all those people who went to their deaths? And a great many demonstrably critical thinkers (like Mr. Newton for example) obviously considering it Genuine? Why exactly is none of it at least evidence, to your mind? Not scientific proof, mind you, but just evidence.
Which isk nown as:
An appeal to/from authority. It is a classic example of how most CAGW proponents argue. And in fact, it is the argument style that is openly mocked by us skeptics.
You can not win an argument by simply saying your side is popular.
So, no… none of what you list here counts. It does not matter what Newton taught of the Bible. It would matter if Newton’s Laws showed that the Bible was the word of the one true god. But, alas, Newton’s Law’s point the other way… they point to a universe which does not need a god to explain its workings.
unknown,
“Which is known as:
An appeal to/from authority”
Strange as this may sound, I consider extremely well documented historical events as something of an authority, which is quite properly appealed to in all sorts of argumentation.
One wonders on what logical grounds you exclude such things from consideration of what constitutes evidence? I mean, isn’t all that can be called scientific evidence dependent on an appeal to that “authority”? You know, like papers and books and such, that didn’t just pop into existence a moment ago?
“You can not win an argument by simply saying your side is popular.”
Now you’re starting to make sense to me. Thanks ; )
J. Philip Peterson,
And as you have shown in your comment, one can have fun with mythology (religion). Here is comedic poetic mythology of the sacarstic kind.
Enjoy.
John
Thx John…
John Whitman,
“And as you have shown in your comment, one can have fun with mythology (religion). Here is comedic poetic mythology of the sacarstic kind.”
I’m pretty sure Alice in Wonderland was not having fun with what is generally called religion, but with quantum physics.
(This is a superposition comment ; )
JohnKnight,
Lewis Carroll published ‘Alice in Wonderland’ (AiW) in 1865. Google Search shows there are dozens of diverse and entertaining interpretations over the last 150 years about what AiW could be seen as signifying. Here are just a few of the interpretations of AiW: some were focusing at religion, some at existentialist philosophy, some at communism, some at the Queen of England, many at political figures, some at Quantum theory when it was proposed circa ~~1900.
Wonderland has many disguises for impossible things, just as mythologies do that, it’s their stock in trade. Yet mythology is an important function for telling stories that meet some human being needs emotionally and/or psychologically.
John
John Whitman,
“Yet mythology is an important function for telling stories that meet some human being needs emotionally and/or psychologically.”
I think I get it, you see those who don’t believe what you do, as needing myths, while you are believing what you do because you’re not in need of such fanciful things, right? Sounds pretty comforting to me . .
I’ve heard that spiel from what seems like a thousand “un-needy” people, and though I was not a “believer” till I was in my forties, it always struck me as condescending and trite. Did it ever occur to you that so very many humans might have (apparently always) believed in things like gods, because they witnessed real evidence that such things exist? You know, the obvious explanation?
Not nearly so comforting to the self professed “non-needy” no doubt, but it does have that cause-and-effect aspect going for it, so popular among the scientific minded, right?
JohnKnight,
I disagree with your statement in bold in every conceivable context. Humanity benefits emotionally and psychologically from the stories that constitute all of mythology (religion). I am part of humanity, I benefit too. There are wonderfully portrayed situations in the stories of mythology (religion) which enrich our view of life; I’ve enjoyed some of the stories immensely and was enriched from their telling. But, there is the need to understand they are just stories. They are scientifically irrelevant to objectively achieving what is called scientific knowledge.
John
John Whitman,
“Humanity benefits emotionally and psychologically from the stories that constitute all of mythology (religion). ”
It certainly seems so to me too . . but it seems to me that humanity benefits in just about every way from food, and yet food seems so utterly real to me ; )
” But, there is the need to understand they are just stories.”
From my perspective, it needs to be understood that you haven’t any possible way of knowing that all such stories are “just stories”. Pretending that you know they are all just stories is about as unscientific a way to behave as human behavior gets, to me.
“They are scientifically irrelevant to objectively achieving what is called scientific knowledge.”
It seems rather obvious to me that you have no possible way of knowing whether any such stories have relevance to objectively achieving what is called scientific knowledge. For all you know, many ideas and principles found in such stories have already contributed to objectively achieving what is called scientific knowledge.
The very idea that one can expect consistent and universally applicable test results from carefully devised experiments, might very well have come about, and into general acceptance, because that’s what the Book I consider Authentic seems to indicate is reflective of our Created world/universe. As in, what we now call science, began among people who were quite familiar with the stories it contains and took them very seriously. It has numerous references to the stability and orderliness of His Creation, and even calls to check Him out on that, so to speak.
The notion that such expectations just popped up out of nowhere (thanks to the almighty god of random chance ; ) is not justified by examination of history, I say. Some of the early pioneers of science actually speak of their expectations along these lines as being related to that Storybook.
But please relax, I’m not suggesting those who don’t see that Book (or favor any other source of stories) as Authentic, ought to be in any sense restricted or shunned or even noted, in the scientific fields. I’m just suggesting you stop believing that people are not effected by such stories, such that they can be spoken of as truly irreverent. People and their stories are very complex critters, with very complex interaction going on all the time, it seems rather safe to say.
You have a greatly amplified opinion of the probable cognitive abilities of a polar bear;-)
You do remind me, however, one the great world mythologies that count on reincarnation — serial immortality leading to either reunion with the Godhead (Atman with Brahman) or with Nirvana (freedom from the cycle of rebirth into suffering, true death-or-whatever). The first is pandeism — really monist panendeism, a belief that not only is there only one God, but everything that has objective being is God, so that you are God and I am God and the trees are God, only we have forgotten our true nature because just being God is boring and timeless so We broke ourselves into reality to be able to experience entropy flow (incomplete information passing through our perceptual identities, viewed as open systems) and hence time. This is frightfully rational and plausible — it is fairly easy to show that if God exists and has some or most of the properties of the Standard Model of God (omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience etc.) that the information content of God and the Universe of things that objectively exist (including God) must be identical (omniscience). Indeed the mapping must be so precise that there is really no point in considering dualism.
There are serious problems with the model, of course — the most serious one being that if true, the Universe was not created by God, it just IS God, uncreated, and furthermore, that it is not just the Universe in a single spacelike surface through spacetime corresponding to the “present” in some reference frame (advancing in the direction of time as the stuff within dances according to the laws of physics, the metaphorical weaving of the worldlines of the Norns) it must be the entire volume — all spaces, all times, all things, all at one not-time in which the whole thing is stationary. For God to experience time, for God to be able to think, God requires a reference frame with time and sequence and God requires entropy in order to experience time, but entropy contradicts omniscience.
A second, very serious one is that we have a pretty good idea how “thought” works. Our thinking brains, the thinking brains of every organism we can observe that has a brain at all, and our “thinking” computational machines all operate according to mathematical models and structures we conceptually understand and have proven theorems concerning things like the entropic associated with a dynamical switching operation (critical to the mechanism). While of course anything is possible where we cannot see it, there is really nothing in the operation of physics that bears any great resemblance to thought, and it is very, very difficult to see how a pandeist “God-Universe” could in any meaningful sense be sentient. But if you are going to believe in God and seek logical and mathematical consistency, this is definitely the way to go because at least it satisfies the simple set-theoretic and information-theoretic constraints of the SMG, where alternative theories find themselves in almost instantaneous trouble.
Let me see if I can put this just right. The Matrix trilogy proposes a Universe (really a perceptual Cosmos) that is really a computer simulation. Everything in the sensory/perceptual field of an inhabitant of that Cosmos isn’t really there — it is simply precisely represented in the information within an enormous, deterministic computer running a deterministic program. In the first movie, the characters themselves still have “free will” because there is a higher level Cosmos in which they are being used as sources of power for that very computer, and it doesn’t actually control their physical neurology, only the input to the neurology through the interface of their senses. Everything they believe is wrong, but something is still right, it is just that a true picture of reality is one level up where they cannot observe or detect it with their senses unless the computer either makes a mistake or else if inhabitants of the higher level reality intervene to pull you out of the simulated reality and set you “free”.
However, over the course of the next two movies, we learn that the higher level reality itself isn’t real, that the computer simulating reality and the “free” inhabitants of the higher level reality and all the rest of that reality are themselves a simulation in — what? An infinite, nested sequence of computer simulations? A finite nested sequence of computer simulations in which we turn out to be non-player characters in a game played by the highest order supposedly real entities? How can those entities ever be sure that they aren’t being simulated in a still larger and more powerful computer? And what of “free will”? On the one hand, it isn’t possible to violate the rules of the computer that dictates the dynamical evolution of your simulation, but on the other, the complexity of the dynamical map is stupifying and essentially unpredictable except by applying it iteratively to see what happens. However, no computer or “sentient” entity at any level of the iterated recursive embeddings of reality has free will. It just seems that way.
Still, this “Hilbert’s Grand Hotel” infinite embedding is the only model I’ve been able to come up with that can generate a kind of entropy, a non-repeating chaotic fractal layering of reality as dynamical maps are recursively, fractally, chaotically iterated, that both accurately describes our own perceptual cosmos decently and allows for the bare possibility of a sort-of-free-willed limit that sort-of-experiences time as the forward integration of a deterministic iterated dynamical map. One has to be very, very broadminded about what one considers “will” and “thought”, but hey, when you enter Hilbert’s Grand Hotel, you find a cigar in your room even though nobody ever delivers cigars to the hotel (if you don’t know of this metaphor, you should look it up).
Now let’s come back to the issues repeatedly raised by people who wish to argue that just because they can imagine God, or have a finite number of choices for explaining the Universe and God is one of them they can sensibly choose to believe it. Yes, you can so choose, no, it is not sensible.
It is easy to demonstrate this — indeed, your own arguments (JohnWest?) demonstrate it. Here’s a model for the Universe. There are really two independent Cosmoses (Cosmi?) — the one we appear to exist in, and one sort-of like it that we can call the Lord of the Rings Cosmos. In the latter, all of the events recorded by Tolkein in his series of middle Earth books actually happened, are happening, will happen (it has its own time axis, so time there is not in any way related to time here). There is absolutely no interaction between them, or at least, there is no interaction between them that we can detect, although I can argue that Tolkein was obviously somehow physically connected to the second Universe in some way hidden in the “magic” of brain mechanism too complex to be perfectly understood, where maybe at the quantum level our dreams are influenced by snippets of events that happened in the LOTR Cosmos (and possibly vice versa, perhaps Saruman’s industrialization of Isengard was inspired by dreams from the reality of England’s industrial revolution in a weird dream-interaction reverberation).
Now, this is clearly possible. It contradicts no observable aspect of Cosmos A (us) to have a second Cosmos B (LOTR), especially if they really ARE completely decoupled, but also if they are so subtly coupled that we cannot detect the flow of information in between them as it happens only in our living brains.
Is it reasonable to take this assertion seriously, to give it a degree of probable belief not larger than so very small that it is an immediate neighbor of zero, so close that they chat over the fence and their kids go to the same schools?
I think we would all agree that it is not reasonable to take it seriously. First, although it could be true, it is one of a staggering infinity of things like that that could be true — the “multiverse” hypotheses you already rejected is one limit, so is any finite or infinite sequence of “Matrix” like embeddings of simulations of simulations of reality all the way down to ours (and beyond! World of Warcraft NPCs Unite! It is time to free ourselves from the tyranny of Blizzard’s servers!) Why LOTR? Why not Dickensville? Why not Barsoom? Why not… (fill in blanks for the rest of your life).
They all seem equally (un)likely even though they cannot be contradicted. So why believe in any of them?
One good reason would be the existence of real evidence that a second Cosmos or embedded sequence of Cosmi exist at all!
But we have no such thing. Whether you want to call it the LOTR or “Heaven” in any of its myriad descriptions, populated by Sauron or God or Satan or a big computer, we simply have no evidence to help us even choose among the possibilities. Which is why it is only reasonable to believe in none of them, barring some pretty sound, reproducible, double blind, reliable, unmistakable evidence.
rgb
rgb,
“Now let’s come back to the issues repeatedly raised by people who wish to argue that just because they can imagine God, or have a finite number of choices for explaining the Universe and God is one of them they can sensibly choose to believe it.”
I don’t know who you are speaking of, I see no one here arguing such a thing . . it seems to me those are imaginary people. Might I suggest, ; It’s easy to farm, when you plow with a pencil.
“But we have no such thing. Whether you want to call it the LOTR or “Heaven” in any of its myriad descriptions, populated by Sauron or God or Satan or a big computer, we simply have no evidence to help us even choose among the possibilities.”
Sure, been there, done that, so to speak. But it occurred to me that it might be possible to get some evidence. For if I am in a “Person” generated universe, I might be able to “interact” with the Person. As in;
~Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.~
Consider please, there is a flaw of sorts I believe I detect in the notion of “we” not having evidence, for in the final analyses, is not the very notion of a “we” a concept in the mind of an “I” . . which is to say you. So the operative question is not what evidence do we have, but what evidence do I have, or can I acquire,. I suggest.
The very idea that one must have conformation from other “I”s, is itself a stumbling-block to each “I” who embraces it, it seems to me. And clearly there are a great many others (in your reality-land) who claim to have gotten evidence which they cannot directly show you (the “we”), so the claim that “we” have none, is actually just an assumption by an “I” who has none, I suggest..
“He knocks” on your door, right here, right now, does he not? Are not those words I quoted therefor true in an ultimate reality sense, within both the space/time continuum, and the “I” which an other is addressing?
What more do you need . . to justify at least trying to answer that door? Some sort of permission from a certain “we”? A consensus among some particular “higher authorities”? Why, I wonder . . what are you afraid of?
(I do suggest any attempt to answer that metaphoric door, include the name of the one who said he’s knocking, to forestall any impersonators from taking you for a ride, so to speak.)
rgbatduke on October 7, 2015 at 9:30 am
– – – – – – –
rgbatduke,
Enjoyed your discussion of the likely existence of many relative impossibilities wrt reincarnation. Now for a little light fun.
A Case Study in Reincarnation: Reincarnation is impossible for Peter Pan who never grows up and arguably will live forever in Neverland.
The Peter Pan fairytale-like story is more understandable and useful to human understanding of a part of life than usefulness to understanding life from the apparently earnest testimonial claims that reincarnation is real.
John
Excellent! A standard we can agree on! I will expect Jesus to come to my office in a few minutes (or God, if Jesus as an incarnation of God is too busy being all powerful to spend an afternoon with me). When he knocks and says “Rob, are you there? This is Jesus — do you have time for dinner?” I’ll say yes and we can head on off to get Chinese on campus before my next class starts at 6:15.
I might ask him to change whatever we get from the soda machine into beer, just to make sure that he really is Jesus and is capable of altering chemistry remotely on the fly, but I’ll make up for it. It will be my treat.
Oh, wait, you didn’t mean that all I need to do is try to pretend to hear a voice inside of my head, did you, and flood my system with crazy chemicals that make me feel warm and loved by an imaginary pal? If so, we have different standards of evidence. The one above I’ve tested many, many times, because Jesus does promise to do that in the Bible (not that he kept any of the promises made in the Bible, such as the promise to return to usher in the kingdom of heaven during the lifetime of his followers). If we are to believe the Bible further, he was perfectly happy to appear to a Christian persecuting Jewish guy named Saul on the road to Damascus and personally invite him to believe in him, so there is precedent. There is further precedent for this sort of appearance according to Paul/Saul, who asserted that this had happened for “hundreds of others” in the early days of the church. Further more, the Bible makes it very clear (in the voice of Jesus as related by others, so I suppose it is hearsay of hearsay of hearsay) that if I don’t believe I’ll be damned, even if my lack of belief is in the very best of logically defensible common-sense backed perfectly good faith.
Jesus even states that he preaches in parables so that listeners will be confused, fail to believe, and thereby be damned. This isn’t very nice of him, but of course we’ll have plenty of time to discuss this and his pointless cursing of fig trees and the wisdom of curing blindness by rubbing muddy spit into people’s eyes instead of by snapping his metaphorical fingers or the like — it sets a bad precedent for people who are ignorant of the fact that muddy spit is likely to be full of really horrible bacteria (especially in animal-for-transportation Palestine) and who still think that disease is caused by evil spirits or is a curse for sin, all over dinner.
If he fails to show up in an unambiguous human person again, instead of as some sort of invisible imaginary presence that exists only within one’s mind and is otherwise utterly indetectable by any sort of apparatus, and only under circumstances where if he fails to show it must be your own fault for not believing hard enough (not even falsifiable in experience, that is) then we’ll have to trace through some serious theodicy.
Jesus is God, and supposedly loves me. As a being that loves me, he presumably doesn’t want to curse me to hell (no matter what hell is, a place, a state of mind, being cut off from God, fill in the blank because a wink is as good as a nod to a blind horse). We will ignore the fact that as an all powerful being who loves me, he certainly doesn’t have to do anything he really doesn’t want to and so we’re discussing the moral equivalent of me not just flunking a student who does poorly in class, but taking the student and passing them off to a skilled torturer who then torments them for eternity on a personal whim, and pretend for a moment that life is tough, and rules are rules, and if one flunks physics — I mean if one fails to believe in him — one will indeed be condemned to some sort of hell by a process as inevitable a falling rock in a gravitational field, sorry, nuthin’ I can do Charlie.
So here it is. He’s all powerful and he loves me. He is clearly capable of appearing to me in actual person, coming to dinner precisely as you describe above (see “all powerful”, which really means that he has the means and time to do so even if he’s busy elsewhere in the Universe just now as well — infinite is infinite so it is surely enough to spend some on me). There is divinely inspired and supernaturally authenticated evidence that he has done this for people who didn’t even ask numerous times in the past, if the argument itself isn’t enough. For whatever bizarre reason, he has created me with a horribly flawed brain that insists on believing things for solid reasons and has set up this inflexible set of rules that dictate that he can’t help himself, he simply has to damn me if I fail to believe before I actually die. I promise — if he gives me a solid reason to believe, that is, a physical knock on my physical door as soon as the student who is in my office finishes her makeup exam (although heck, she might be willing to rearrange her schedule too for a chance to Dine with God Incarnate).
So if he fails to show — again — either a) Jesus doesn’t really love me, and hence is not worthy to be considered God; or b) Jesus is not all powerful, and hence is not worthy to be considered God; c) large parts of the Bible are complete bullshit, and — get this — nobody knows which ones. It is unreliable evidence and should not be taken seriously (including the snippet you quote above, not realizing that I’d take you up on it literally instead of in the let-me-flood-myself-with-endorphins sense you intended).
We should really have applied the latter standard first. The Bible is chock full of errors in matters of fact, dubious ethics, aburd assertions and is already perfectly obviously an unreliable witness. What do we do in court, when confronted with an unreliable witness, one who is repeatedly shown to lie, be mistaken, to mislead, and who has an unreliable character? Do we believe anything they say just because we’d like to think the defendant innocent, or guilty, or whatever? Or do we pretty much discount their testimony and rely on things like physical evidence because it is difficult to trust a liar? Common sense, please.
Of course I’ve had this discussion many times before, so I already know what you will respond with. You didn’t really mean that Jesus would show up in person. Why not? Because you knew that this would not happen. You know that it probably didn’t happen to Saul/Paul, or “hundreds of others”. Jesus couldn’t even convince one of his own disciples that he came back from the dead unless that disciple was allowed to put his had into his wounds (not that we should believe this story any more than the rest, but again, we’re investigating consistency, since nobody can prove or disprove 2000 year old hearsay about miraculous events that violate physical laws that we never observe being violated today). Surely if two saints — one of whom should damn well have been able to recognize Jesus without the need for any contact, since he was was referred to elsewhere as his twin, possibly his brother — required a personal visit and hands on contact — it is not so insanely unreasonable for me to require the same.
But we both know that will never happen. Because it never does, where it always should!
This is where we will, I’m sure, differ about the nature of evidence. You were brought up to believe in Jesus without any real question, without ever requiring any evidence that our belief was any different from the myriad other false and mythological beliefs humans have entertained over the ages (as was I). At some point, I grew up, and learned about logic, reason, and standards of evidence. I examined the Bible and found that far from being perfect truth, it was contradicted everywhere — a most unreliable witness — and that it explicitly authorized things like beating your slave almost to death (because he or she is your property), or marrying a woman by “virtue” of raping her and paying her father 30 shekels of silver, stoning a woman (and sometimes even a man) for having sex outside of the very narrow and patriarchal bounds it allows. I found that Jesus cursed fig trees for not fruiting out of season, that he cured blind men with muddy spit, that he cast out devils into a herd of pigs, that he performed exactly the kind of “magic” that I used to see street magicians armed with a couple of shills perform when I was growing up in India, two-bit “miracles” that wouldn’t stand up to the slightest bit of actual scrutiny. I found that in one place Jesus told his followers not to call him good, or God, because he wasn’t either one, while in another he was supposedly the alpha and the omega. I found that far from being divinely inspired, divinely protected text written by eyewitnesses, we haven’t even got fragments of orginal manuscript, that nobody really knows who wrote what or when, that the manuscripts we do have were copied and recopied and that we can document changes and additions over time so that at this point nobody knows what Jesus actually said or did, let alone where or when he did it, let alone whether or not we should take seriously assertions of miraculous resurrection — assuming that he actually existed.
When was Jesus born? We don’t know within twenty years! Luke gives unmistakable “testimony” that it was during the reign of Herod Antipas. Matthew is just as unshakably clear that it was during the reign of Herod the Great. What did he do after he was born? No clue — in Matthew there was a flight to Egypt to avoid a slaughter of innocents that is totally unrecorded in any history, in spite of the fact that there were plenty of witnesses at the time and it could hardly have been missed if it happened. In Luke, he just kept on trucking and didn’t fly off anywhere. Why would he have to? No wise men, and Herod Antipas was even less likely to do anything that the Romans would not have looked kindly on. What was Jesus’ genealogy? Two different recitations, that is, no clue. What did Jesus do from sometime shortly after his birth before showing up at a wedding and doing some cheap magic? Big question mark. Do we have independent witnesses (such as they are)? No, we pretty much have the gospels, and the three synoptics are clearly largely derivative — we could be looking at all three being the work of a single original author — a sort of Palestinian John Smith or Muhammed, who just created this as a sort of fiction to support a cult he belonged to, and which was then modified and cloned and altered by others according to the needs of the cult at the time they were written. And the oddball, John, completely disagrees with the rest on little details like when the crucifixion occurred, what Jesus said and when he said it — it tells a largely different story from the synoptics.
I don’t want to argue about whether or not he existed — I don’t really care, and also don’t think there is any way we will ever be certain one way or the other at this point in time. Even if one finds a tomb with Jesus’s non-resurrected body in it along with other members of his family (oh, wait, that may already have happened:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jesus_Family_Tomb
— or not, of course — how could we know?) shat believer would permit them to be convinced by the evidence even if it were even more persuasive? On the one hand, it would affirm that a Yeshua that corresponded to the modern legend actually existed, which isn’t entirely unreasonable anyway in spite of the lack of independent evidence. But on the other other hand, well, it sort of puts an end to the religion, doesn’t it, if Jesus did not, in fact, bodily rise from the dead and lies buried in all his dusty remains.
So all I suggest, my friend, is that you hold the evaluation of religious assertions to the same simple standards of common sense that you would hold any assertion. The more extraordinary the assertion, the stronger the evidence you should demand before believing it. An unreliable witness who is caught out in repeated errors and lies should be trusted less than our common sense and an entire world of observational evidence, which says pretty much that really dead people don’t come back to life, so that assertions that they do, or have, are to be presumed false unless you can see it happen with a room full of seriously expert witnesses. And the evidence should not be hearsay, should not require special pleading, should require that the person examining it put aside their skepticism in order to examine it (if only you would “open your heart” you would see that it is true is not an argument for any proposition at all).
Evidence is supposed to convince us in spite of our skepticism, convince us in spite of our heart being closed, convince us because when we examine the facts we can come to no other conclusions. It doesn’t only appear to us when we lay our skepticism aside and “believe” without reason, it is the reason we believe. You don’t take two seconds to reject the assertion of multiple Cosmi as being probable truth, not because it might not be true but because there is no objective reason so far to think that it is. And yet you hold fast to a belief that is equivalent to this on exactly the same evidence — none.
Anyway, my student is finishing up. I retire to wait for Jesus’ knock.
rgb
rgb,
” At some point, I grew up, and learned about logic, reason, and standards of evidence.”
I am unconvinced of that, sir.
It is utterly pathetic to me that you can’t even handle a simple metaphor like Jesus knocking on your door without spewing (to my mind) childish inanities, yet speak with a voice of self-ordained authority about something like the Book. As but one example of many I am sure I could cut to shreds if you’d like;
“Surely if two saints — one of whom should damn well have been able to recognize Jesus without the need for any contact, since he was was referred to elsewhere as his twin, possibly his brother — required a personal visit and hands on contact — it is not so insanely unreasonable for me to require the same.”
I can’t even imagine how any but the most immature/ignorant student of that Book could take your claims to be some sort of deep thinker in regard to what it contains seriously, if it doesn’t occur to you that the people involved would need to have a “personal visit” to recognize anyone . . It’s not like they had cell phones with which to take and transmit photos.
And, if you could set aside your wild imaginings for just a few moments, you might realize that Thomas spoke those words about needing to touch his wounds before seeing Jesus in person… (from John 20)
(24) ” But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
(25)The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.”
…and there is no indication at all in the following account of their subsequent meeting that he did any such touching then;
(26) “And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.
27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.”
Jesus immediately addressed Thomas, and Thomas immediately responded with “My Lord and my God”. There is no basis whatsoever that I can see, for concluding Thomas actually needed to touch him once he saw and heard him. It’s just imaginary touching, occurring in your imagination, I propose.
And, in regard to “two saints” not recognizing Jesus in a resurrection body, of God only knows what apparent age, weight, and intentionally disguised voice, as they walked in the dark, I’ll leave it to your imagination to figure out how that failure could have happed.
Many of your other “logics” and assertions in regard to all manner of things are just plain presumptive to me. Again, one example;
“A second, very serious one is that we have a pretty good idea how “thought” works.”
You and what God, constitutes this “we”? Last I researched, nobody understands even why we have consciousness, let alone how it “works”. You’re apparently confusing brain activity with thought. Saying it has something to do with brain activity, which seems rather obvious, is logical to my mind, but saying that how thought works is therefor understood, is to me like saying that because we know that gravity effects objects of mass, means we therefore know how it works. We don’t, yet. last I heard.
It appears to me you don’t yet realize that just because it makes you feel good, and idea is not necessarily truth.
@JohnKnight:
I gotta say, it’s just so tempting to try to jump in and have a go at trying to get you to do something other than quote a old and many times revised collection of committee selected stories most of which are provably historically inaccurate by archeological evidence.
Read something else. Almost anything else, and then report back…
Try something like:
“The Synaptic Self”, Joseph LeDoux
“The Pleasure of Finding Things Out”, Richard Feynman
or
a short novel…
like
“Fahrenheit 451”, Bradbury
or something even shorter like:
“The Black Cat”, Poe
There are many more interesting things to read and quote from than a silly collection of poorly written, poorly organized, poorly grouped, mostly erroneous and definitely exaggerated oral traditions of a small group of desert nomads living on a tiny mote of dust floating in a forgotten musty corner of a not-so-unusual galaxy.
Please, for yourself, explore some of the rest of the universe. And if you find ‘god’ in all of creation, after thoroughly reading about how no sane designer would ever make such a horrendous machine such as the human body, nearly any form of life as we know it… then feel free to convince me, but not with bible quotes… quote the science, it is much more beautiful and enchanting, enthralling even! At least meet Einstein’s god, instead of the one encased in human ignorance and arrogance.
I try to stay from posting, because it’s too time consuming to argue and too tempting not to argue. Oh well, for me, I’m a sucker.
unknown,
Is the general rule you favor, anyone can say anything about any “religious” text they feel like, but it is not permissible to employ the text itself to refute what they claim it says/implies?
If not, why are you not “scolding” rgb for his long meandering discussion)s) of what that Book (and others) supposedly say.imply . . at least in conjunction with “scolding” me?
“Read something else. Almost anything else, and then report back…”
I’m back . . I’ve read all sorts of other things other than that Book, including all but one of the books you mentioned there. I’m over sixty years old for cryin’ out loud (and I didn’t even read (much) of the Bible till I was past forty.)
Have you been kept in a dungeon or something, being force fed stories about Christians being kept in dungeons or something, being force fed stories from the Bible? ; )
Seriously, imagination is a wonderful thing . . in moderation.
@JohnKnight:
So you’ve read all these books except one:
“The Ancestor’s Tale”
“The Greatest Show on Earth”
“The Red Queen”
“God is not Great”
“The Red Queen”
“The Demon Haunted World”
“Free Will”
“The Synaptic Self”
“The Pleasure of Finding Things Out”
“Fahrenheit 451”
“The Black Cat”
“The Golden Compass”
“The Subtle Knife”
“The Amber Spyglass”
“Gilgamesh”
And…
“The Christian Bible”
And you’ve decided that the bible is the more informative layperson source for things such as:
-Darwinian Evolution
-The need for a personal god in order to explain the workings of the known universe
-The existence of matter and energy
-Rejection of CAGW
-Physics, Chemistry, and any other possible science
Of course, the novels and other works of fiction would never be quoted as evidence for a science topic. But, I seriously question both the claim of reading and understanding the non-fiction writings and the sanity and wisdom of rejecting such material because of an overly stretched belief structure relying on the last book on the list… which is also a work of fiction… the bible.
If you’ve truly read through the above non-fiction book list and find no evidence to dispute religious beliefs regarding evolution, consciousness, a personal god, the supposed order of the species, the direction of evolution, and others… it’s very unlikely that anyone or anything will every convince you otherwise.
If you’ve truly read the books, and discard the evidence presented throughout because the evidence does not contain precise science information, as in the tables of data, the charts and graphs, the chemical formula, a precise experimental procedure for each datum… then I’m sure someone could locate a rather large comprehensive list of published science papers, and if you have at your disposal the equipment to perform the experiments – perhaps you will find the ‘evidence’ you seek. However, I’m not sure there are many individuals who have access to the needed experimental equipment – and if you’ve rejected the materials contained in the book list above, it’s likely you lack the necessary skill in the subject matter at hand to replicate the experiments and perform the calculations to reproduce the a few centuries worth of experimental data…
And this is why people read the layperson texts, because even people who do possess the necessary analytical skill can not perform and re-perform all of science in any given lifetime… And the lack of time necessitates reading and digesting a layperson digest of the material of a given subject of external interest… Unfortunately, with CAGW, there are plenty of sources of incorrect information disguised as correct information. That’s the challenge. To discard sources of information that are dubious.
So, which single text have you not read?
And, why have you rejected the rest? Specifically why… not a general wave of the hand and a bible quote.
I’m very curious as to your thorough and thoughtful explanation.
unknown,
In the beginning God created the there and the elsewhere.
And the elsewhere was unmentioned and without form
And darkness was on the face of the deep . . . ; )
“Which is why it is only reasonable to believe in none of them, barring some pretty sound, reproducible, double blind, reliable, unmistakable evidence.”
By that standard I’m not even sure I’m me.
1) You presuppose we have the capacity to understand the universe (as in everything including what we don’t even know about), do you have pretty sound, reproducible, double blind, reliable, unmistakable evidence to support this?
2) There’s a lot of things I believe that I’m not “pretty sound, reproducible, double blind, reliable, unmistakable evidence” sure of like that my wife loves me, that I love her, that love is a thing, that 42 is the answer to life the universe and everything (not really), that I don’t laugh at what I find funny for absolutely no reason at all, that my friends actually like me, that I like them, that liking someone is a thing, that a bad day fishing is better than a good day at work, and pissing into the wind is a bad idea, etc. etc. etc. I guess I’m just all around unsensible.
John West,
It seems to me that for some, only the imaginary, within in their own imaginations, is “trustworthy” . . even if they know it cannot be trusted. It brings to mind the words of our Lord~
~I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?~
How can one hear a small still voice, if one’s ears are constantly filled with the chatter of one’s own imagination . . where fishing is but an idea, and love but a vague concept?
Sometimes I think Hell will be nothing more “real” than to be left in that shadowy place within, without Him and the order He provides.
Who has ever put Life in a test tube and analyzed it? That which makes a plant “alive”? That which makes an animal or a human body “alive”?
No one.
The effects of “Life” exist, and can be observed and measured. But “Life” itself?
No.
Yet who would deny “Life” exist?
NSF, NOAA and NASA gave Shukla’s IGES tens of millions of dollars in gov’t funds for a minimal amount of some minimal type of research. Yet NSF, NOAA and NASA gave zero for Soon, Connolly and Connolly to do some unique solar focused research.
John
oops, posted on wrong thread. should have posted it on the thread ‘Short Summary of Soon, Connolly and Connolly’
Sorry,
John