1

Amazing! I thought you guys are extinct. You indicate you've defended your beliefs in other places (but not in the present post). I would very much appreciate if you would reveal those places (references). WP

2

Joe wrote:

"39. I believe that the fact that some receive from God the gift of faith within time, and that others do not, stems from his eternal decision and that in accordance with this decision he graciously softens the hearts, however hard, of his chosen ones and inclines them to believe, but by his just judgment he leaves in their wickedness and hardness of heart those who have not been chosen.

40. I believe that God has chosen a definite number of particular people out of the entire human race, which had fallen by its own fault from its original innocence into sin and ruin, and has grant them true faith in Christ, to justify them, to sanctify them, and finally, after powerfully preserving them in the fellowship of his Son, to glorify them.

41. I believe that just as God himself is most wise, unchangeable, all-knowing, and almighty, so the election made by him can neither be suspended nor altered, revoked, or annulled; neither can his chosen ones be cast off, nor their number reduced. (14)"

A very difficult belief.

I wonder how many here at Evangelical Outpost share the belief.

3

Walter--Have you checked Joe's archives? They are on the left side, below the sponsors, of the EO homepage by date and also by subject.

4

I doff my hat to you sir.

It is a hard thing to bare your soul in public like this. I admire your willingness to do so.

Thank you very much for sharing your beliefs.

5

Eric and Lisa wrote:

Joe wrote:

"39. I believe that the fact that some receive from God the gift of faith within time, and that others do not, stems from his eternal decision and that in accordance with this decision he graciously softens the hearts, however hard, of his chosen ones and inclines them to believe, but by his just judgment he leaves in their wickedness and hardness of heart those who have not been chosen.

40. I believe that God has chosen a definite number of particular people out of the entire human race, which had fallen by its own fault from its original innocence into sin and ruin, and has grant them true faith in Christ, to justify them, to sanctify them, and finally, after powerfully preserving them in the fellowship of his Son, to glorify them.

41. I believe that just as God himself is most wise, unchangeable, all-knowing, and almighty, so the election made by him can neither be suspended nor altered, revoked, or annulled; neither can his chosen ones be cast off, nor their number reduced. (14)"

A very difficult belief.

I wonder how many here at Evangelical Outpost share the belief.

Certainly, I do not. Just think what that means. God is Love. Love that is unconditional. According to the beliefs above I have the right to be self-righteous because God has chosen me but not "you". The Holy Spirit is within us, it is our decision whether to accept the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I can take no credit for my relationship to God for it is God (the Holy Spirit) that is in me doing.

Why would he just choose some people? If he didn't choose you then why do you exist? You exist because you have the opportunity for relationship with God. That is what his Son brought to us and it is the Holy Spirit that is within us.

39,40 and 41 is nothing short of heresy.

6

Ok, sorry about the heresy thing.

I just get so steamed (wrong of me) when such broad statements are made that is so much against the message of the first statement.

The statements of 39,40 and 41 are much closer in belief in God to a Jewish and Muslim point of view rather than a Christian point of view. It is even close to a Hindu point of view (people are in a lower or higher caste due to closeness to "god")

7

Joe, this is very eloquently stated, and I'm sure you'll refine it further, since here at the EO you have not only iron to sharpen you, but also sandblasters like TGirsch and Mumon to smoothe you. (Just waiting for your comments guys ;->)

Tim, you may disagree, but you're way out of line and obviously ignorant of church history to call Joe's beliefs on election heresy. He's simply restating what many, but not all, church fathers have believed since the First Century.

Love is only "unconditional" in the sense that Romans 9 puts on it, i.e., God owes no man anything, including salvation. His love does not have to meet your or my condition of "fairness," that He must love everyone the same. And no, election does not give us the "right to be self-righteous." Rather the effect should be along the lines of Newton's "grace that taught my heart to fear, and grace my fears relieved."

The right question is actually "why would He choose to save anyone?". Funny, but it used to bother me that Romans 9 says God "hated" Esau, until one day I realized that the really troubling thought is that He loved Jacob.

As for why people exist, check out the "potter" section of that same chapter.

8

Joe:

As always, a pleasure reading your stuff. You've hit a nail on the head -- Unfortunately, if you're someone who examines their own turtles, it's easy to become arrogant.

The hard thing of to remember why you're trying to de-roof someone else. It's not to win an argument, but to help another person to see the truth that changed them. I think it was an old Larry Norman song that used the phrase "just a lowly beggar telling another where he's found food". Hunility's hard.

9

Walter Amazing! I thought you guys are extinct.

What guys are you referring to? Christians who admit what they believe? ; )

You indicate you've defended your beliefs in other places (but not in the present post). I would very much appreciate if you would reveal those places (references).

Any points in particular that you are curious about?

Eric and Lisa I wonder how many here at Evangelical Outpost share the belief.
My guess would be all those that call themselves Calvinists. ; )

Because of the negative connotations of that label, I tried to sneak in some “mere Calvinism” through the back door. I agree that 39,40 and 41 are, as you say, “a very difficult belief.” But I think it flows from believing 30, 31, and 32.

Tim According to the beliefs above I have the right to be self-righteous because God has chosen me but not "you"

While some people tend to act as if this were the logical implication of that belief, such pride is certainly not warranted by Scripture. The Holy Spirit is within us, it is our decision whether to accept the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I can take no credit for my relationship to God for it is God (the Holy Spirit) that is in me doing.

39,40 and 41 is nothing short of heresy.

Um, 39, 40, and 41 are nothing more than a restatement of the L, I, and P in TULIP. Are you really saying that Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, Francis Schaeffer and every Bible-believing Presbyterian on earth are all heretics?

Ok, sorry about the heresy thing.

No harm done. I’ll call off the bulldogs from the PCA. ; )

I just get so steamed (wrong of me) when such broad statements are made that is so much against the message of the first statement.

I too find it a hard belief to comprehend. But it is what scripture-and human experience-appear to teach.

The statements of 39,40 and 41 are much closer in belief in God to a Jewish and Muslim point of view rather than a Christian point of view. It is even close to a Hindu point of view (people are in a lower or higher caste due to closeness to "god")

Good grief. I’ve heard Calvinists called a lot of things but comparing them to Brahmin is a new one…

10

Joe, thank you for publicly affirming your belief in so many doctrines of orthodoxy.

Tim, I think you have it backwards. You have much more cause for self-righteousness if you believe you've found the way by following your own will. But boasting is excluded on the grounds that the Lord is the author of our faith.

11

Joe,

A very interesting post, since I've been fighting in the trenches with Gordon about evolution on your blog so much last week or so I was wondering if you could focus on the following:

5. I believe that God created, out of nothing, all things that exist and that he was intimately involved in the process from the beginning to the end state of all created beings. (3)

6. I believe that the cosmos, the summum bonum of creation, would cease to exist without God's providence acting as the sufficient cause of its existence. The universe is so radically contingent on God that it would exnihilate-be replaced by nothingness-without his continuous sustainment. God's daily work of preserving and governing the world cannot be separated from the act of calling the world into existence.(4)

7. I believe that God not only creates and sustains his creation but rules it by divine fiat and that we understand this action as creational or natural laws.

You have written, more or less, that evolution of humans, thru 'blind, random, naturalistic forces' would violate your worldview. Two questions:

1. Considering above, do you believe that random natural forces exist in the universe? For example, lottery results, the behavior of sub-atomic particles etc.?

2. If so, then doesn't it follow that even random natural forces must exist in the context of a God created and maintained universe? The lottery results, so to speak, may be random but that doens't mean they exist apart from God's will.

12

1. Considering above, do you believe that random natural forces exist in the universe? For example, lottery results, the behavior of sub-atomic particles etc.?

Not really. For natural forces to be truly random (as we generally use the term) they would have to be completly unaffected and independent of non-random natural laws. What we mean by the term is that no mathematical pattern can be discerned or predicted by human intellect. God, on the other hand, would have no problem predicting events even if they were independent of his causal action. But nothing in the cosmos-and certainly nothing affectable by natural laws-is independent of God.

Also, lottery results are not really random at all. The statistical likelihood that any one person will win may be an extremely small number but since someone will win, the result isn't what we should call random.

13

Joe,

Perhaps you have misread Hawking, or you're inadertently engaging in a bit of Christian postmodernism here by appearing to demote science into being merely one more competing worldview, as useful or useless as a bunch of nested turtles.

That is because the story about the lady explicitly and humorously demonstrated the sheer foolishness and arbitrariness of non-empirical claims when compared to scientific facts regarding the physical nature of the universe. (Hawking has nothing really to say about any possible spiritual nature to the universe.)

You have apparently assumed that all opinions on the cosmos are just variations of nested turtles, namely assertions of faith. That simply isn't so. The description of the physical universe that science has painstakingly constructed is accurate to an astonishing degree of precision. Of course, it isn't complete, but it is very, very precise, very accurate, and very real. It is physically real in exactly the same way whether you are a scientist, an artist, an Eskimo, a turtle-nester, or a Christian.

Your beliefs are your beliefs and no one has the right to force you to change them. However, if you truly believe that the scientific description of reality is just one more point of view, just one more bunch of turtles, then sooner or later reality itself will set you straight. No miracle of Christ will ever permit you to walk comfortably in a snug fitting overcoat made of lead. No belief in God will afford you a close up look at a planet that is millions of lightyears from the Earth. That is reality.

The physical universe is not a bunch of nested turtles and cannot be described that way with anything remotely close to the accuracy science has. Nor does an accurate description of the physical universe have room for the supernatural in the manner assumed by religious fundamentalists who foolishly seek some kind of historical reality for passages - like Genesis - that have a far deeper and more important religious reality .

Asserting this obvious fact does not in any way, shape, or form detract from any genuinely intelligent and profound spirituality. It would be like saying that because Picasso was a painter, Mozart couldn't be a composer. In short, true assertions about the nature of physical reality have absolutely no relevance to spiritual reality and statements of religious truth. This is not to deny the existence of that spiritual realm, or to consign it to the dustbin of supertition - although much that was assumed physically true in the past clearly wasn't - it is simply saying that there is no intelligent disagreement between scientific fact and religious faith except in two ways, neither of which fall within their purview and which represent a failure to understand what the terms "scientific" and "spiritual" actually mean:

1. When science is misunderstood as a calculus for the resolution of human ethical and moral questions, the implications of scientific research are extrapolated far beyond anything science can possibly speak to.

2. When religious texts are used to assert facts about physical reality without recourse to any evidence beyond those texts or the faith of a community in a higher authority, the assertions are worthless both scientifically and theologically, because they represent a profound misunderstanding and a refusal to attend to the clear spiritual meaning of the texts.

So believe whatever you want, but if you make the mistake of assuming your beliefs are as equally valid as science in describing the physical world, sooner or later you will have a very rude awakening when your beliefs don't mesh with reality. The real world is not turtles all the way down. Nor was it created in 7 days in 4004 B.C. or through the physical agent of an intelligent designer.

Nor, of course, does the fact that it is possible to make hydrogen bombs mean that it is somehow moral to build or use them. That is an issue science cannot answer, but religion can speak to with great passion and eloquence.

14

Joe,

Also, lottery results are not really random at all. The statistical likelihood that any one person will win may be an extremely small number but since someone will win, the result isn't what we should call random.

Actually, by almost any definition you can find of random, lottery results are entirely random.

See here, for example: "random".

Perhaps what you mean to say, Joe, is that the lottery contest itself is not random, because it is held regularly and has established rules about how it ought to be conducted.

I think your main point, though, is that your worldview accomodates random natural processes (and human ones, like lotteries), by asserting the omnipotence and omniscience of God.

While that is true, as far as it goes, I would have to subscribe to other explanations myself.

I don't think Boonton is likely to get very far by attacking the conclusions that can be drawn from the postulates of your worldview. As the sophists knew very well 2,500 years ago, it is possible to use logic to rationalize any statement and conclusion, no matter how counter-intuitive (or false!) it might seem.

I think a more productive critique of your worldview would go along the lines of challenging the infallibility of the Bible.

How does anyone know the Bible to be any more divinely-inspired than some other collection of history, poetry, and ethical teachings? How do we assign scriptural inerrancy to this particular material that you believe in?

This point, I believe, is the weakest link by far in the orthodox Judeo-Christian claims to absolute authority in all things moral, cosmological, and theological.

For Boonton to challenge your turtle-architecture by pointing out counter-intuitive conclusions is not a total waste of time, of course. But it just gives you too much room to logically bob and weave, to resort to casuistry that will only appeal to you and other true-believers.

Since by your announced views, I am almost certainly fated to be damned by God, I am tempted to sign off with a rakish "See you in 'hell', my Bible-believing friend."

But I'll resist the temptation. :)

Tristero,

Excellent points.

I'm not sure though, that the levels of cognitive dissonance between the Bible and science that Joe ever ends up experiencing will actually reach a crisis point. The capacity of the mind to deny what is seemingly obvious is often tremendous.

One quibble:

1. When science is misunderstood as a calculus for the resolution of human ethical and moral questions, the implications of scientific research are extrapolated far beyond anything science can possibly speak to.

I don't know anyone who misunderstands science in this way. If you do know of someone, please tell me, I'd be very interested in what he/she has to say!

15

Joe, have you noticed that the Doctrines of Grace are most reprehensible to the natural mind?

Good job for not being embarrassed of God's absolute Sovereignty over all things.

16

Joe - wonderful post.

Jim Gilbert - Excellent answer for Tim.

Many years ago I taught a Bible study group in my home. A friend of mine encouraged a friend of his, a seeker but not yet a fully committed believer, to start attending. My friend told me that this person was wavering a lot and was close to falling away because of immense doubts that he had. I was terrified! What if I said something wrong or gave some answer to a question that turned him away? Finally I realized that it was up to me just to do the best that I could but the final result was entirely in God’s hands and not my own. Predestination for the first time came across as comforting and not at all threatening! The fellow, over the years, became a staunch Christian. And once again, could I now boast about my little part in all of this? Absolutely not! It was God working on this man’s heart, not I. The doctrine prevents bragging and at the same time comforts and encourages us.

Good job guys!

17

Matthew As the sophists knew very well 2,500 years ago, it is possible to use logic to rationalize any statement and conclusion, no matter how counter-intuitive (or false!) it might seem.

I have to disagree with you there. The sophists were effective precisely because they were able to avoid the use of logic in their arguments. All worldviews, in my opinion, must be internally coherent and logically defensible if they are worthy of respect.

How does anyone know the Bible to be any more divinely-inspired than some other collection of history, poetry, and ethical teachings? How do we assign scriptural inerrancy to this particular material that you believe in?

Because the Bible is the testimony of God, we have to have God’s confirmation that it is indeed infallible and inerrant before we can believe such a claim. If someone were to provide me with a written statement and claimed that it was your sworn testimony I might believe it but I could not have it confirmed unless you told me that it was, in fact, your words. The same is true for the Bible.

This point, I believe, is the weakest link by far in the orthodox Judeo-Christian claims to absolute authority in all things moral, cosmological, and theological.

What then is the absolute authority? If we believe that some things have more authority in these spheres than other things (i.e., good is better than evil) then we must ultimately be able to trace it back to a final authority.

Since by your announced views, I am almost certainly fated to be damned by God, I am tempted to sign off with a rakish "See you in 'hell', my Bible-believing friend."

You are not “fated” to be damned. That is a misunderstanding of the doctrine of election. (Of course it would take awhile to sort that issue out so I’ll save it for another day.)

I'm not sure though, that the levels of cognitive dissonance between the Bible and science that Joe ever ends up experiencing will actually reach a crisis point.

I don’t think the Bible and science are incompatible at all. On the other hand I do think that there is a cognitive dissonance in believing that the universe was uncaused and undirected yet has miraculously provided us with intellects that ae able to discern cause and pattern. ; )

The capacity of the mind to deny what is seemingly obvious is often tremendous.

Amen, brother. ; )

18

Not really. For natural forces to be truly random (as we generally use the term) they would have to be completly unaffected and independent of non-random natural laws. What we mean by the term is that no mathematical pattern can be discerned or predicted by human intellect. God, on the other hand, would have no problem predicting events even if they were independent of his causal action. But nothing in the cosmos-and certainly nothing affectable by natural laws-is independent of God.

Also, lottery results are not really random at all. The statistical likelihood that any one person will win may be an extremely small number but since someone will win, the result isn't what we should call random.

There is a good chance that at least one person will win a typical lottery but that is still a random function. There's a chance someone will win and a chance no one will win. The only difference between that and the chance that any one number will win is that one is much better than the other. Yet I think you have to admit that you seem to accept random events as part of natural law while you hold God to be beyond natural law hence able to 'discern[ed] or predict[ed]' random events that elude natural law. Hence saying the evolution of humans happened thru random events is no less an error than saying the fact that '42' showed up twice in last nights drawing happened simply thru random events.

19

Joe asked of Tim

"Are you really saying that Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, Francis Schaeffer and every Bible-believing Presbyterian on earth are all heretics?"

I can't speak for Tim, but I am always fascinated by appeals to authority in the context of religious discussions.

20

Eric & lisa said, "hard to believe",...sounds like John 6:37-65 to me. Then they walked with Him no more.

21

Joe,

I have to disagree with you there. The sophists were effective precisely because they were able to avoid the use of logic in their arguments. All worldviews, in my opinion, must be internally coherent and logically defensible if they are worthy of respect.

Actually, I have to disagree with myself, because you are quite correct.

A better example would be the powerful Jesuit confessors of seventeenth and eighteenth century Europe, who were notorious for finding moral and legal loopholes by pushing logic to extremes.

"How does anyone know the Bible to be any more divinely-inspired than some other collection of history, poetry, and ethical teachings? How do we assign scriptural inerrancy to this particular material that you believe in?"

Because the Bible is the testimony of God, we have to have God’s confirmation that it is indeed infallible and inerrant before we can believe such a claim.

And God's confirmation is to be found in the Bible itself.

The Bible is true because God told me in the Bible!

What then is the absolute authority? If we believe that some things have more authority in these spheres than other things (i.e., good is better than evil) then we must ultimately be able to trace it back to a final authority.

The ultimate authority is reality. Our experience, the experience of others, and any tools we can aquire to reliably interpret it.

If you believe you can perceive God's presence in reality, you are not alone, and more power to you.

But most people acknowledge that belief in God is a matter of faith. They acknowledge that God doesn't come right out and announce his presence, and that reasoning alone is not sufficient to establish the existence of God and his influence.

In other words, it is reasonable to not believe in the divine authority of the Bible, and it is reasonable to not believe in God. That's my main point.

You are not “fated” to be damned. That is a misunderstanding of the doctrine of election.

I think you may have misunderstood me.

I am not saying I am fated to be damned by the doctrine of election. I am saying I am fated to be damned by virtue of my purblind refusal to believe in orthodox Christianity or in God himself.

... there is a cognitive dissonance in believing that the universe was uncaused and undirected yet has miraculously provided us with intellects that ae able to discern cause and pattern. ; )

Good point.

There are many interesting and mysterious things in our world.

Some of them are natural (life, human intellect, the material world in general), and some of them are the result of human industry and inventiveness (technology, economic and political institutions, music and art).

You see divine miracles and I don't. I think both are reasonable positions.

"The capacity of the mind to deny what is seemingly obvious is often tremendous."

Amen, brother. ; )

Very witty rejoinder, you made me laugh.

But...

I do see people everywhere who do deny the obvious because it does not jibe with something in the Bible, or it does not jibe with their interpretation of something in the Bible.

I'm sure you see this all the time, too. Someone will make an assertion that seems totally ridiculous, and if you challenge them they will quote a couple of lines of scripture or some Bible story.

Most of the time, such resorts to Biblical authority are harmless enough. But lots of people do get carried away with this sort of thing.

I know that you personally make it a point of pride to eshew irrational or superstitious denial of reality, but belief in Biblical inerrancy does lend itself to intellectual laziness in a lot of people.

Do you disagree?

22

Joe,
Great post. Maybe Matthew's use of the word "fate" isn't completely incorrect; in that, his decisions, past, present, and up to the moment of his final breath are known to the Creator. This brings up a question in my mind, as a believer. Does the Holy Spirit seem to go through a purely academic exercise knocking against the hearts of emphatically unbelieving individuals, having prior-knowledge of the ultimate outcome? Perhaps the mystery and difficulty of predestination is tangled in those muddled sentences somewhere...tough stuff.

23

Boonton and Joe's discussion of random events and the will of God seems to be a pretty good illustration of why the argument that evolutionary biology (or any modern science) is inappropriately naturalistic is just "sound and fury, signifying nothing." If both random events (in which human intellect can distinguish no pattern) and predictable events (that humans can model mathematically) are viewed as part of the working out of God's will, then there isn't a lot of scope left for theists to argue that evolution must be wrong because it depends on "blind, random, naturalistic forces."

To put it another way, there's no real basis for a claim that natural selection is anti-theistic, if we have already accepted that God's will encompasses Newtonian mechanics and Mendelian genetics.

24

Usually what we call random is only pseudo-random, and mathematical probability always reflects a lack of knowledge. We describe gases in terms of pressure, volume, etc. because it's easier than measuring the momentum of each particle. Lottery results are "random" because it's dauntingly difficult to calculate all those interactions. Belief in an omniscient God is not in conflict with real-world randomness.

As for origins, those who are skeptical of macro-evolution have been pointing out for a long time that information is a quantifiable entity, and the antithesis of randomness.

Hence saying the evolution of humans happened thru random events is no less an error than saying the fact that '42' showed up twice in last nights drawing happened simply thru random events.

Postulating that life cannot be the result of randomness is very different from claiming that '42' cannot be the result of a random draw.

25

Matthew The Bible is true because God told me in the Bible!

Ah, but I don’t believe that God only told me in the Bible. I believe that he told me both by mediate means (Scripture) and through immediate means (directly to me by the Holy Spirit).

The ultimate authority is reality. Our experience, the experience of others, and any tools we can aquire to reliably interpret it.

So reality is true because reality told us it was true? ; )

But most people acknowledge that belief in God is a matter of faith.

Oh, I agree that it is a matter of faith. But so is my belief that senses can accurately discern reality.

In other words, it is reasonable to not believe in the divine authority of the Bible, and it is reasonable to not believe in God. That's my main point.

Hmm. I don’t want to give the impression that someone is irrational or unreasonable if they do not believe in God. But in my view it is similar to them refusing to believe that other people have minds like them. There is nothing particularly irrational about holding such a view. Yet you would have to suppress some pretty obvious implications in order to hold it. I think the same is true for basic theism.

I am not saying I am fated to be damned by the doctrine of election. I am saying I am fated to be damned by virtue of my purblind refusal to believe in orthodox Christianity or in God himself.

Well, yeah, you’re certainly right about that one. God isn’t going to tackle you and force you to believe against your will. So if you actively choose not to spend eternity with him he will certainly respect your desire.

I do see people everywhere who do deny the obvious because it does not jibe with something in the Bible, or it does not jibe with their interpretation of something in the Bible.

I see the same thing. In fact, I would hazard to guess that at times I’m guilty of that myself.

I'm sure you see this all the time, too. Someone will make an assertion that seems totally ridiculous, and if you challenge them they will quote a couple of lines of scripture or some Bible story.

Yeah, I think that is a very bad approach. I think the Bible is authoritative for all mankind. But if people deny that authority you can’t just beat them over the head with a 90-lb KJV until they change their mind. You have to bring people to understand why the Bible is authoritative.

I know that you personally make it a point of pride to eshew irrational or superstitious denial of reality, but belief in Biblical inerrancy does lend itself to intellectual laziness in a lot of people. Do you disagree?

No, actually, I think you make a good point. I don’t think a belief in inerrancy is essential to being a Christian (though it certainly helps). But some people do believe this is the case and choose to have a “blind faith” in the doctrine even though they may not be totally convinced themselves. I wrestled with the doctrine for years (even debated it on an Errancy group on Yahoo!) and was ready to give up on the idea. It was then that I realized that the doctrine was really true. I also realized that it wasn’t just my intellect (I couldn’t find any actual contradictions or errors in Scripture) that was convincing me but rather God himself. After that I say the doctrine in a new light and it made more sense.

26

"there's no real basis for a claim that natural selection is anti-theistic, if we have already accepted that God's will encompasses Newtonian mechanics and Mendelian genetics."

Yup.

The rub is that the modern day creationists aka ID peddlers believe that this metaphysical theatre should be taught and considered in public school science classes.

27

Usually what we call random is only pseudo-random, and mathematical probability always reflects a lack of knowledge. We describe gases in terms of pressure, volume, etc. because it's easier than measuring the momentum of each particle. Lottery results are "random" because it's dauntingly difficult to calculate all those interactions. Belief in an omniscient God is not in conflict with real-world randomness.

As for origins, those who are skeptical of macro-evolution have been pointing out for a long time that information is a quantifiable entity, and the antithesis of randomness.

But the same sword cuts both ways. When scientists say the evolution was shaped by random events they do not imagine some huge random number generator. They are talking about events that are mostly deterministic but cannot be easily modeled because of a lack of information. A comet impact, for example, happens because of the very deterministic laws of motion which we need no more than Newton's work to model. It is random, though, because we cannot map the path of every particle in the solar system (as well as those entering the system) backwards billions of years.

I used the word mostly, however, because quantum theory seems to tell us that there is true randomness in the universe. Sub-atomic particles behave according to laws that incorporate randomness...not simply deterministic laws that are easier to handle with random models.

Postulating that life cannot be the result of randomness is very different from claiming that '42' cannot be the result of a random draw.

True but what do you mean by a random draw? Do you mean an idealized random draw in the sense that a circle is an idealized form that can never be drawn in the real world...even by the best drafting equipment available? Or do you mean the traditional balls bouncing around in a big bin that are really following the simple laws of motion but we model as a random draw out of ease?

In either case I don't see any special theological reason to rule that God could not have incorporated true randomness or 'pseudo-randomness' into the structure of the universe? In order to argue saying 'process X incorporates randomness (true or pseudo)' is excluding God from process X one has to assert that random processes exist outside of God's domain.

28

Larry L.,
What kind of peddler are you? Just so we can properly stamp you with a label, so you'll feel more comfortable..

29

Matthew,
You said “But most people acknowledge that belief in God is a matter of faith. They acknowledge that God doesn't come right out and announce his presence, and that reasoning alone is not sufficient to establish the existence of God and his influence.
In other words, it is reasonable to not believe in the divine authority of the Bible, and it is reasonable to not believe in God. That's my main point.”

You seem to be a reasonable fellow so you must understand that that the Christian belief in the Bible as the word of God did not just materialize out of thin air. There is much historical evidence to back it up. Especially the evidence surrounding the historical figure of Jesus. His claim as to being the Son of God and fulfilling the promises of the O.T. prophets. His miracles and his history changing ministry. His crucifixion, death, burial, and finally his appearance to many of his disciples after his resurrection. The fact that these 11 common men suddenly become firebrands for the good news of his resurrection and going out to spread the gospel, and the fact that most of them died martyrs deaths for what they claimed to be truth. The fact that these events change the course of history.
You need to deal with this historical figure, this Jesus of Nazareth. Was he a liar, a lunatic, or was he Lord? I believe that God did announce his presence to the world in the person of Jesus Christ and that these events were dutifully recorded for us to either accept or reject. I hope and pray that you will one day accept.
You might want to read “Evidence That Demands A Verdict” by Josh McDowell or some of the amazing books by C. S. Lewis. These men struggled with belief also but finally came around to fully believing and accepting.

30

Larry writes: I am always fascinated by appeals to authority in the context of religious discussions.

I am too, but we are being naive since, except for Buddhists, that's all religious people have to fall back on and apparently it's more than sufficient for them.

Joe writes:

29. I believe that while the Canon of Scripture was written down and collected by human men throughout history, I also believe that certain knowledge about this text was revealed to me, through the immediate revelation of the Holy Spirit. This knowledge includes the following: that Scripture is God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit; wholly and verbally God-given, it is without fault in all its teaching.

The keys phrases here are, of course,

1. was revealed to me
2. it is without fault in all its teaching

If a few people approached their religious beliefs this way we would not have a problem. Unfortunately, though, there are millions of Christians in the USA who agree with Joe and seek to change both our educational and judicial systems to coincide with their views. That there are the other groups – Muslims and Scientologists to name but two – who take exactly the same approach with radically different sets of beliefs makes the situation even more problematic.

The only outcome I can see is more war, of the cultural sort as well as the kind with guns and bombs.

31

Matthew G.:

"...belief in Biblical inerrancy does lend itself to intellectual laziness in a lot of people."

Yes, some truth there, but may I give a different perspective? Sometimes faith in the Bible as truth impels Christians to put aside faith in our own intelligence, just as we might put aside another quality or characteristic. I might be innately witty/sarcastic, but forsake that quality in favor of kindness. I might be a gifted athlete, but sacrifice that career path for one of service, based on what I read in the Bible. In the same way, where I find conflict between Biblical wisdom/knowledge and my own intellect (logic, reason, knowledge), I cede to God's greater wisdom, because "the foolishness of God is greater than the wisdom of man."

Case in point: I cannot rationalize God's infinite love and His choosing of some for salvation. It's not logical or reasonable. So I cede to His wisdom and accept both, without being able to explain this apparent inconsistency logically or rationally (although I continue to wrestle with it, and test my beliefs).

Laziness? No, it's a choice, and one that is sometimes difficult. Yet I continue to find the Bible the most intellectually stimulating material available, year after year. If I was truly intellectually lazy I might avoid both Joe's posts and the comments here! ;)

32

Joe,

Thank you for your respectful and honest responses.

Even though you think I'm going to hell forever, I can see you're a good person who strives to know the truth. And as I have pointed out before, that means we're on the same side.

Roger,

Thank you for the book tips.

You are quite right that the life of Jesus and the
witness of Paul and the eleven faithful disciples are something that must be accounted for.

I once saw some nonbeliever in God (I forget who it was) put it this way: Jews, Christians, and Muslims are atheists too -- they just believe in one more God than I do.

In other words, the great monotheistic traditions were great improvements over the multi-God myths that they ended up replacing. They just didn't go far enough, they had to hang onto one last God instead of going all the way to atheism.

While this is a gross over-simplification of what actually happened, it is also a useful way of looking at (at least if you're an atheist!).

33

Hoots,

I have said nothing and implied nothing about following my own will. In fact I said the opposite regarding that it is the Holy Spirit within us that is responsible.

But we do have some choices. We can say no to the Holy Spirit! The thought of self - righteousness comes from the fact that God has chosen to save me but has not chosen to save someone else. Doesn't that make me better? (The answer of course is no, but it is the implication that many have taken, it is the natural result of such a belief). He is the author of my life but my story is a better story than one that is not saved. Again, I don't believe that I am just stating that it is the implication of #39,40,41.

Isaiah 63:10
But they rebelled against him and grieved his Holy Spirit.

Acts 2:38

38 Peter replied, “Each of you must turn from your sins and turn to God, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. Then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 This promise is to you and to your children, and even to the Gentiles* –all who have been called by the Lord our God.”

1 Thessalonians 5:19

19 Do not stifle the Holy Spirit.

James 4:5

5 What do you think the Scriptures mean when they say that the Holy Spirit, whom God has placed within us, jealously longs for us to be faithful* ? 6 He gives us more and more strength to stand against such evil desires. As the Scriptures say,
“God sets himself against the proud,
but he shows favor to the humble.”

Jim Gilbert said:

The right question is actually "why would He choose to save anyone?

Amen to that!

Joe,

If it is our decision to accept the Holy Spirit isn't it our decision to be saved? If it is our decision then how can the number be limited? Can't everybody be saved? I realize that everybody will not as they will choose not (how could I not, the Bible and a look around reveals that). My point is if the number is predetermined by God (which is different than known by God) then there are people who cannot even choose to be saved. That just does not make any sense and seems rather the opposite of the message that Jesus brought us and that Paul taught us.

Along with the others, I also thank you for sharing your thoughts. Whether my doubts about some beliefs are right or wrong (fortunately God can handle my doubts), we both understand what is important. God the Father sent his only Son to save us.

34

Gray,

I strongly agree with you that your example of the paradox of election is not intellectual laziness.

I was referring to something like believing the story of "Noah and the Ark" happened just the way it was in the Bible, or thinking you have to follow every single moral prescription in the Old and New Testaments because they are the word of God.

If you choose to lay aside reason and just accept something because there doesn't seem to be a better explanation, that is not intellectual laziness at all. And while it's not what I would choose to do, my choices are probably not a very important consideration for most people! :)

35

I am not sure why I have included #41 in my disagreement. I do not disagree with that statement (not that my agreement or disagreement matters to a hill of beans).

36

Joe, I agree with you regarding predestination. As many as were ordained to eternal life believed. (Acts 13:48) However I see some vestiges of Covenant Theology in your teaching. One such teaching is that of eternal generation. Under God 2 you reveal that doctrine. However, the doctrine is a misuse of Psalm 2:7, which is interpreted by the Apostles to mean that the Son was resurrected. (Acts 13:33 and Hebrews 1:4-5) Also if I understand you correctly, Joe, cosmic redemption relates to a postmil taking back the earth for Christ. I believe that if that is true, it is without scriptural basis, because the Lord said that His kingdom is not of this world, and therefore there is no sacral authority given to nations to become "Christian".
I would like to know more of what you believe regarding New Covenant theology, as I oppose covenant theology one covenant of grace different administrations as taught by Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Bunyan and the rest. I would like to know what you understand about gospel redemption because I believe that the covenant theology view of law preaching is wrong, that the power of God is the gospel. That power is applied through hearing the word and being cut to the heart by that message. (Acts ch 2)So clarification would be appreciated.

37

In either case I don't see any special theological reason to rule that God could not have incorporated true randomness or 'pseudo-randomness' into the structure of the universe? In order to argue saying 'process X incorporates randomness (true or pseudo)' is excluding God from process X one has to assert that random processes exist outside of God's domain.

True randomness, if it exists (quantum or otherwise) is still a property of the physical universe, and only a god bound by physics would be subject to it. My God doesn't play dice.

One who believes in a strictly deterministic universe must say that the words I'm typing were pre-determined from the beginning of time. One who holds that true randomness exists must say that my actions are purely random. There is no middle ground, since the existence of any truly random event introduces indeterminacy into everything else. In other words, no room for intelligence, will, or information.

A purely naturalistic worldview demands one of the two extremes. On the other hand, many of those who allow for the existence of supernatural forces speculate that life may require the presence of more than physical law and white noise.

38

Rob B.

"Larry L.,
What kind of peddler are you? Just so we can properly stamp you with a label, so you'll feel more comfortable.."

By peddler I mean someone who is paid or appointed to market goods or information. Or "worldviews," if you prefer.

I'm not one of those.

Perhaps I should set up a PayPal account so people here can show their support. I might even be able to quit my day job and pursue a career in music or painting.

Boonton writes

"In order to argue saying 'process X incorporates randomness (true or pseudo) is excluding God from process X' one has to assert that random processes exist outside of God's domain."

Obviously true.

And 100% irrelevant to the most important claim of Christians, which is that Jesus Christ was God's son on earth, preached a gospel of love and forgiveness, was crucified, and resurrected.

Or at least that used to be the most important claim of Christians. Lately the religion seems more focused on establishing the probability that yeast evolved from a bacterial ancestor, or showing that gay marriage is going to undermine the foundation of our government.

Weird.

39

I have said nothing and implied nothing about following my own will. In fact I said the opposite regarding that it is the Holy Spirit within us that is responsible.

So who is responsible, us or God? 50% us? 1% us? I think the strongest scriptural case can be made for 0% us, although I admit it's one of the least practical doctrines I know of. I don't want to rehash the whole Calvinism/Arminianism thing, which we'll undoubtedly still be arguing while meeting Him in the air. In general, I simply find more danger in saying that I am at all capable of coming to Christ myself, than in saying that I'm elect for unknowable reason by God's grace.

40

Joe
Wow! I dont come by here often enough. thoughtful discourse is so rare on the web. Nice to see a rational discussion. Excellent post!

41

One who believes in a strictly deterministic universe must say that the words I'm typing were pre-determined from the beginning of time. One who holds that true randomness exists must say that my actions are purely random. There is no middle ground, since the existence of any truly random event introduces indeterminacy into everything else. In other words, no room for intelligence, will, or information.

This is odd since intelligence, will whatever that is would seem to be able to exist in a strictly deterministic universe as well as one with true randomness. BTW, since we are getting deeper into this let's define true randomness as being totally indeterminable by natural laws...such as in quantum theory as opposed to simplifing tools of deterministic laws.

A purely naturalistic worldview demands one of the two extremes. On the other hand, many of those who allow for the existence of supernatural forces speculate that life may require the presence of more than physical law and white noise.

I think either worldview can incorporate one or the other. There are thiests who believe everything is determined and the book of history was created at the beginning of time and nothing will change from it. In that sense while our actions may be free in some philosophical sense they are also determined...at least as far as God is concerned.

The world was so enamoured of Newton's laws when they first were published that the idea of a deterministic universe provoked a lot of speculation by naturalists. What was glossed over was that even in Newton's time many system are not so easily determined mathematically. While the universe may follow a deterministic laws many of them result in complications so complex the easiest way to determine their behavior is to set them up and see what happens as opposed to mapping out their properties by the equations. So believing the world is entirely deterministic appears consistent with either naturalistic or supernaturalist worldviews as does believing the opposite.

Another note, believing in true randomness does not mean believing anything is possible therefore nothing can be stated with certainity... Casinos are quite predictably profitable as are insurance companies despite the fact that they seem to depend on randomness for their money. Probability tends to cancel itself out so even if true randomness exists it doesn't mean it is impossible to make any true statements about the world.

Or at least that used to be the most important claim of Christians. Lately the religion seems more focused on establishing the probability that yeast evolved from a bacterial ancestor, or showing that gay marriage is going to undermine the foundation of our government.

Indeed Larry, however at least part of that is because our host here has a soft spot for creationism..a topic that attracts people with high levels of geek quotient on both sides.

42

Matthew wrote "I don't know anyone who misunderstands science [ as a calculus for the resolution of human ethical and moral questions]. If you do know of someone, please tell me, I'd be very interested in what he/she has to say!"

In fact, according to English philosopher John Gray, there is a whole tradition of "scientism" going back to the Age of Reason, perhaps earlier. He means the quasi-religious ideas of Positivism (not to be confused with the modern philosophical notion "positivism"). Some names: Saint-Simon, Comte. He discusses this in a book called "Al Qaeda And What It Means To Be Modern." http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1565849876/qid=1126555117/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-4210778-2328841?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 but don't be fooled. It has very little to do with al Qaeda.

I don't agree with many things in the book, as I recall, and some of the reviews at Amazon and elsewhere, eg New York Review, trash it, but historically, the facts are correct and quasi "churches" of science were established, with rituals, etc.

Of course, the whole eugenics notion is scientism at its most repellent. Leo Strauss, yes THAT Leo Strauss, has also written about the importance of having a political science as grounded in fact as medicine (a hilariously wrong-headed notion, as there is something like a 50% chance that any given medical research paper is quite wrong, according to a statistical analysis reported recently in, I think Discover, magazine). As also, of course, is the work of Charles Murray and friends, which uses graphs and charts and polls misleadingly to "prove" innate qualities which aren't and then make reccomendations for social engineering and that a Beethoven string quartet is the best piece of music ever written.

Michael Ruse discusses other extrapolations of science in his books, referring to Wilson, Dawkins, et al. who, according to Ruse, make a pretty specious case for moral behavior based upon their scientific work.

Again, I'm not sure that I agree with Ruse, but don't know that much about it, having not read enough of Dawkins' ethical writing to have an opinion. In truth, I don't care very much about the particular subject of "scientific ethics." I'm far more interested in the actual details of science research than I am in trying to extract a moral code from those details, which I think is a fool's errand.

43

But my point was easier than all of this. Creationist types assert that saying man evolved thru processes that were at least partly random is denying God a role in man's evolution therefore un-Christian. Let's break down the logic:

Assertion: God is involved with every part of the universe and sustains its existence.

Question: Are random processes part of the universe or not?

If they are then evolution says nothing negative about God since its randomness would fall under his domain as much as anything else. If they are not then creationists must have a very different idea of randomness than regular people as well as scientists since they use randomness all the time in describing lots of things about the universe. Their idea of randomness must be some hypothetical process that exists apart from both God and his universe...perhaps something like a 'perfect circle' that does not exist in our universe, cannot exist in our universe, but might exist in Plato's universe of pure forms. This would mean, though, that the creationist idea of randomness isn't the standard definition of the term which includes a lot of things that scientiests and everyday people use to describe mundane parts of the universe like the lottery, stock market, etc. In that case the two groups are really using the same word to describe two different ideas.

44

If randomness is viewed as part of God's creation, part of the natural order which he sustains, and used for creative purposes, then you're right, there is no contradiction.

The concern among many Christians, however, is that believing that we are products of chance does not appear to lead one to thank God for His wonderful creation. Despite the claims of some scientists that understanding our monkey origins leads to greater spiritual awareness and awe, we just don't buy it. The whole "randomness + time = evolution = me" thing seems to lead more to despair and alienation than anything else. Furthermore, the Bible has a wholy different story about our origin and destiny which is infinitely more satisfying. This isn't an argument against naturalistic origins, just a partial demonstration of why it meets resistance.

All this would be extremely problematic if evolution rested on a solid bedrock of scientifically established theory. Instead, scripture has proved far more reliable. It is certainly not impossible to rationally believe that evolution was God's mechanism for creation, it just doesn't seem to show the fruits one would expect from God's revealed truth.

45

Actually it seems you have simply written your manifesto, which readers should appreciate for outlining your general take.

It isn't a turtle foundation, really, but a shorthand for many doctrinal stances.

Sometimes I think the mistake we make when discussing such things is to equate our level of conviction of the truth of something with its intellectual integrity... as if its proof is the the degree of our acquiescence. Since that isn't true, manifestos can be quite useful- they get the raw data out on the table.

46

Hoots, I have thought that the problem for time/chance for Christians is that it relegates them into the machine and they lose their sense of meaning, something that no man, Christian or not, is comfortable with.

47

Matthew: "[B]elief in Biblical inerrancy does lend itself to intellectual laziness in a lot of people. Do you disagree?"

If I may jump in here, I don't see a connection. What I see is endemic intellectual laziness in our society, including unbelievers, errantists and inerrantists. Sure, there are inerrantists who are intellectually lazy. The same can be said for atheists, agnostics and followers of other religions also. The cause IMO is that our educational system teaches students what to think, but not how to think. Sometimes this even extends to higher education.

Let me go a step further now. An intellectually lazy inerrantist is being inconsistent, because the Bible tells them to love God with all their mind and to grow in knowledge. Is there any way in which the belief that we are the random result of natural processes logically compels anyone to develop their mind?

48

I fail to see how 39 and 50 can be reconciled.

49

The latter part of your essay could use another read-through for clarity of wording. Other than that, there is nothing that can be criticized. It's a statement of belief.

50

Somebody asked for a comment from the likes of me; well my major comment is that the more interesting thing to me is the interaction between belief and practice, which is not to me particularly clear.

My point in a nut: practice makes perfect, and thus, to me, is more important than a large laundry list of beliefs. A belief that one can improve one's self - which needed require a long distance leap of faith- is about all is needed to have enough motivation to continue one's practice.

We're not talking perfection here; the measurement of one's self against perfection of one's behavior per se has no "cash value" - it cannot in and of itself do anything to improve our behavior in the world we inhabit. My main point of contention therefore, with Carter's belief system - or if you prefer, my taking his roof off- is that it seems like a Rube Goldberg contraption and therefor counterproductive to the objective of improving one's self and behavior - when measured against the standard of where one is now.

51

Gryph,

Therein lies an apology from me. I took portions personally (past experience) that I should not have.

Nevertheless, always a fun debate for me to watch (as i don't have the intellect to really participate).

52

Gryph,

One more comment. My apology is for the way I reacted, not that I disagreed. A belief system can be wrong (if you are implying otherwise) and can be lovingly criticized.

Of course that goes for my belief system as well. Although for some reason that is so much more difficult. ;-)

53

Mumon,

Within a Christian context, a statement of faith such as the one Joe shared here is not separate from practice, but provides the rational basis for it. If the basis we have for living a certain way is individual and subjective, then we can change our beliefs or decide not to live up to them. A lot of people don't find it in them to make the effort to live up to an arbitrary standard of "ought to"; it is no accident that the liberal churches are in a long decline or that the idealistic '60s gave way to the jaded '70s.

For example, why should we love our neighbor? Some people assent to the idea on a pragmatic basis, but what happens when someone --or a nation-- finds it pragmatic to do violence to their neighbor? OTOH, for a Christian "love your neighbor" is both a direct command from God and the logical outcome of the belief that all people are created in the image of God.

54

...not separate from practice, but provides the rational basis for it.

Why is that important or necessary, if experience has already given one enough awareness, motivation, and direction to be improving?

If the basis we have for living a certain way is individual and subjective, then we can change our beliefs or decide not to live up to them.

Ummm... well... several issues with the above:

1. The minute you say "subjective" or "objective" as though they were separate and isolated you have missed the mark. That is, it is not practice.

2. This sounds to me like you don't want to accept responsiblity. (I hope those are not strong words.) If you have not the authority you have not the responsiblity.

3. Changing beliefs -preconceived notions of reality- is very important sometimes. It is, in fact, necessary if there is a lack of social harmony due to various forms of prejudice, and is often one of the major necessities to cause improvements in psychological disorders such as depression.

So it sounds to me like you want to have a set of beliefs and not want to change them. Why?

55

Kevin:

I'm sorry I missed this part:

For example, why should we love our neighbor? Some people assent to the idea on a pragmatic basis, but what happens when someone --or a nation-- finds it pragmatic to do violence to their neighbor? OTOH, for a Christian "love your neighbor" is both a direct command from God and the logical outcome of the belief that all people are created in the image of God.

I do not think that pragmatic is the appropriate word when one thinks about doing "violence."

Violence by its very nature does not help people, it hurts them.

However, it raises another point: violence is usually quite tangible (although the word can be over used to mean simple psychological coercion).

But "love" ... well, that's another thing...it is clear as a Christian perspective that the basic idea of love need not come as a command from a Christian god nor as a pre-defined theological outcome -that is the message of the Good Samaritan (the guy was from a "false religion" and "truly loved his neighbor").

So clearly there seems to be a bit too much "extra" here if Good Samaritan non-Christians can go around performing important acts of love, where as the religiously correct fall short, by Jesus own' words...

56

I have a question. Do Calvinists think that Arminians are unsaved? (and vice versa for that matter)

57

One more comment. My apology is for the way I reacted, not that I disagreed. A belief system can be wrong (if you are implying otherwise) and can be lovingly criticized.

Any "belief system" can be completely wrong. And it need not be treated "lovingly" either. Nazism comes to mind.

I'm simply observing that Joe has put forward his core beliefs. They are not questions in his mind. These are his Answers. And he is not telling anyone that they should believe what he does. Joe has not thrown down what he believes as a gauntlet in challenge. We can analyze his beliefs as much as we want, but the discussion changes absolutely nothing. They are immune from criticism. (Except for him having a case of run-on-sentence-itus.)

Incidentally, that old lady had it wrong. The earth is really a flat disk supported by 4 elephants that stand on the back of an immense tortoise swimming through space and time. She left out the elephants. At least, thats what I believe. ;-)

58

It is important to lay out such worldviews in detail as you've done here. The ensuing discussion compels me to mention a new blog carnival between atheists and Christians. Take a look at it here for details about this great new forum for this sort of dialogue.

59

Here's an interesting side-by-side comparison of world views Joe

I'm one of those crazy materialist who doesn't understand something Joe. I stopped commenting here because I felt you were a dangerous idiot. Now that your leaders and ideology have utterly failed, I'm not here to laugh at you. In fact I'm practically crying over it. And don't worry, I won't be hanging out, just wanted to make a few points.

You've written a nice post or two over the last few weeks decrying evolutionary biology and pimping you worthless 'world view', I have a question? First some background:

Here I am along with dozens of scientists on the afternoon of Saturday, August 27, explaining the danger of Hurricane Katrina on the largest Blog on planet earth and my readers can be seen literally saving lives and offering their own homes to evacuees. I specifically discussed flooding. Note- I'm relying on silly old materialist science ...

Strangely you have no post for that day Joe? What happened to your 'world view' and 'alternative' science?

Here I and the DKos community--which is larger than the top fifty conservtive blogs put together in traffic-- are DKos on Sunday morning August 28th and again later the same day, with an urgent ALL CAPS update in bold telling folks flat out to bail. Again using that bankrupt naturalism you so abhor ... where are you Joe? What happened to that 'alternative science' you crow so much about?

Here we crazy materialist science advocates are yet again using that methodology you want to destroy to save lives and warn people early Monday, August 29th that even though the eye missed NOLA proper there was already massive flooding and that the loss of life could be horrific because survivors would be cut off. Here's my ending quote on Monday at 11 AM EST

"Good news" maybe misunderstood. Only means those in hardened, high, shelters more likely to escape serious storm injury--Best shelters will probably serve the purpose of providing essential, minimal life-saving protection, most inside will get sopping wet. Worse, most pumps have shut down and grid power is out. There is flooding & collapse of homes and smaller buildings: TENS OF THOUSANDS ARE IN THOSE PLACES. The loss of life could be horrific. Survivors may be isolated without power and food for the forseeable future.

Joe again your blogging is oblivious ... is that your world view at work? You have a post up on "Market Economics" for that day. Did you start to catch on by Tuesday, August 30th?

Sadly no. While my silly materialism is warning that the city is flooded and catching fire with the headline "Big Easy: Water Still Rising and Catching Fire, you have a post up attacking evolution and crowing about how ignorant the laypublic is concerning science! Wow! That same science that I'm using to save lives and that you crow against like a medieval lunatic.

While Bush continues his vacation and his chosen FEMA director Michael Brown bumbles around like the incompetent idiot he is, you're again missing in action?

Finally your first post on Thursday, almost a week after we silly materialist scientists and progressive bloggerrs had been saving people's lives and warning them, you finally wake up and claim that you read about it at Wizbang because "Paul is the self appointed spokeperson for hurricane victims'. My Lord the arrogance and utter studidity. You and "Paul' are just a tad late there buddy, about five days behind us worthless progressives and a week behind science. By the time you finally caught up and started organizing your 'conservative blog relief effort' most of us already had families in our home partner. More of your amazing 'world view' and 'alternative emthods' at work Joe?

I'd give your 'non materialist' science an F minus there buddy. Your 'world view' is beyond delusional: It's deadly. It's fatal.

If you disagree ... When is this much vaunted 'world view' of yours going to actually produce results beside Joe Carter missing the most obvious disaster in 100 years and blabbering on about his superior 'methodology'? Because while you carp and whine and bitch and moan about the evil scientific 'establishment, I and those same materialists were saving lives, predicting the disaster down to the time, place, and details, and putting people up in our homes house and organizing the first online center for evacuees to fund refuge; before you had a clue, before it even happened! How? Why using science!

So ...When Joe? How many men, women, and children, have to die needlessly before you either cough up the utter failure of your alleged 'alternative' world view and admit you fell flat on your ass along with FEMA, the DHS, and Bush? Give me a number? One-thousand dead Americans? Ten-thousand? A million? How many have to die for your mythological delusions Joe? How many have to die for your careless ignorance and futile 'world view'? I'd really like to know. The former Republicans now living in my home I helped talk out of leaving and who now curse and scream at Bush everytime he appears on my screen want to know also? When Joe? When is 'world view' actually gonna be worth more than a hill of old beans and work?

60

DarkSyde,

Let me ask you once again a question that you’ve never been able to answer: why does a materialist care if people live or die? Matter is all there is to a materialist so why does it “matter” if they are alive or dead? Seriously, try to calm your mind from the self-deluded importance for a moment and ask yourself why, if the world is truly meaningless, that it matter one way or another whether someone dies or not?

61

No Joe let me ask you again the question you just once again ran full tilt away from in probable terror: When does your 'world view' actually work better than my silly "Darwinist' outlook? Give me a time and a date, or the number of dead children it takes before you admit you're chock full of BS?

62

Darksyde:

When does your 'world view' actually work better than my silly "Darwinist' outlook?

I tried to put it a bit more politely, but I agree with your basic point: like Marxism, the contradictions inherent in this "worldview" are actually counterproductive to practical results.

If you spend all your attention immersed in ideology, you've no bandwidth for doing real, concrete things.

63

No need to be polite about it Mumon; we're talking about life and death. It's a simple question and yet medieval antiscience lunatics like Joe seem quite eager to avoid answering it. Our 'world view' which a lot of us call 'reality' or 'science', along with the sub views called 'weather forecasting', 'satellite imagery', and 'computer modeling' saved a bunch of people and warned exactly what would happen-- Joe's 'world view' was oblivious for almost a week. I'm asking him when his 'world view' will kick in and prove its superiority, if ever? It's a simple question, really. Why didn't it work? Why is he so reluctant to answer? You and I and my comrades in the 'false sciences' saved hundreds of thousands of lives starting several days ahead of time while Mr Epistemology here wrote nary a word until Thursday, why is that? What went so disastrously wrong with your world view?

Joe: Bottom line is your 'world view' is complete nonsense and it fell flat on its ass in a live fire exercise--hardly surprising. Whereas I and my fellow Kossacks, with our 'Darwinist', or 'materialist' outlook using science saved plenty of people lives and organized homes for feeling residents before the Evangelical Outpost even knew what was happening. Including I'm sure a number of fetuses, fertilized human ova, and head trauma patients in all degrees of consciousness or lack thereof; even persistent vegetative states, if that makes any difference given your odd sense of priorities. So what went so terribly wrong with your 'world view' and why did ours work so, so, so much better to preserve human life? And given that, why are you here once again pimping a demonstrably failed and empirically deadly crock of worthless crap? And why are you so anxious to avoid answering?

64

The Bible says, "don't answer a fool according to his folly." Modern translation: Don't engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

65

DarkSyde,

Why don't you just stroll back to Kos-land where you can spend all day patting yourselves on the back for having saved the world from ChimpyHitlerBush.

I'm usually pretty tolerant of trolls but for you to make such obnoxious claims about having saved people's live by blogging(!) is simply disgusting. I'm sure all of the poor people who couldn't afford transportaion out of NO were busy reading your "journal" on Daily Kos so they would know what to do!

Get over yourself. You used to be fairly tolerable. And after your breakdown I felt terribly sorry for you. But until you get help I'd rather not have to waste my bandwith on your self-deluded tripe.

66

I can walk and chew gum at the same time Joe, unlike you.
I strongly urge your readers to follow me over to Dkos if they value their life and limb over your bankrupt ideology which has a tendency to kill people by the truck load. read Joe for fun, read the reality blogs to save your ass.
Or, since you may not speak reality based lingo, in neo-conese "You're doing a heckuva a job Joey!"

67

I strongly urge your readers to follow me over to Dkos if they value their life...

Oh yes, dear readers, if you value your life then by all means read DailyKos. ; )

And in case you haven't been over there before, let me fill you in on what to expect: DarkSyde is one of the rational bloggers. His lunatic rantings actually pass for reasoned discourse in that echo chamber.

68

Mumon: Why is [a rational basis for practice] important or necessary, if experience has already given one enough awareness, motivation, and direction to be improving?

For one thing, different people have different experiences that lead to different outlooks, and different ideas of what even constitutes an improvement.

1. The minute you say "subjective" or "objective" as though they were separate and isolated you have missed the mark. That is, it is not practice.

Your idea of where the mark is differs from mine :D

2. This sounds to me like you don't want to accept responsiblity. (I hope those are not strong words.) If you have not the authority you have not the responsiblity.

That would be true if I had no authority. My point is the opposite: we need an authority outside of ourselves if anything but chaos and the Law of the Jungle is to result.

3. Changing beliefs -preconceived notions of reality- is very important sometimes. It is, in fact, necessary if there is a lack of social harmony due to various forms of prejudice, and is often one of the major necessities to cause improvements in psychological disorders such as depression.

It can sometimes be a very bad thing, such as when the educated, modern and enlightened nation of Germany decided to look the other way when Brown Shirts began assaulting Jews and a Fuhrer replaced the parliament.

So it sounds to me like you want to have a set of beliefs and not want to change them. Why?

Well, I've changed my mind on a lot of things over the years. All I'm saying is that if practice doesn't have a rational basis then people will be going in different directions or nowhere at all.

I do not think that pragmatic is the appropriate word when one thinks about doing "violence."

There are a lot of people who disagree with you, and unfortunately more all the time. What are you going to do? Impose your views on them?

But "love" ... well, that's another thing...it is clear as a Christian perspective that the basic idea of love need not come as a command from a Christian god nor as a pre-defined theological outcome -that is the message of the Good Samaritan (the guy was from a "false religion" and "truly loved his neighbor").

Christianity was the first to carry the idea of one's neighbor beyond the bounds of one's village, tribe or nation and make it universal. That said, Christians don't always live up to what they say they believe in. But that is an inconsistency, whereas there is no incosistency in someone who thinks human life is an accident choosing not to love their neighbor.