1

I read the post before reading your response to #2. Very good response. Breast milk would be a moral wrong with this thinking as well.

I think equating the two actions (cannibalism & donating) to be incorrect on its face. One is taking (consuming) the other is giving of oneself willfully.

2

Joe,

Thanks for the link and the kind words. Have a great weekend.

3

Allergies and Antihistamines? Well, as with 'heroin chique'... what you got with young Ellen there is what's called a "red eye chique". It's got nothing to do with hey fever. I mean, look at the stupid written all over her face. You think that's supposed to be allergy induced? More like TV induced. I'm sure her initial paper was real good, oh yeah.

4

Re: the argument against organ donation.

As some of McGrew's commenters have pointed out, premise 2 also contains the implicit assumption that a human body is equivalent to a human person. A human person is an entity valuable in him/herself, but there may be disagreement over whether a corpse is also entity valuable in itself. I suspect that the moral value of a corpse depends on living people who mourn the person who has died, rather than anything intrinsic to the corpse itself. McGrew's use of the pronoun "it" to describe the body is telling.

If we conclude that the wrongness of cannibalism consists in treating a human person as a mere object for use, then we need to decide whether a dead body is morally the same as a living human before we can conclude that organ transplantation is morally wrong. My inclination is that any argument which treats a living human as morally equivalent to a corpse is itself morally wrong.

5

"So when are their so few blogs--a medium that lends itself to such reflection--devoted to writing personal devotionals? ... Raoul from Dignoscentia is one of the few bloggers I've found who take up the practice systematically. He's currently going through the Psalms, writing short posts about each of them."

Joe! I do it too! Link to me me me me me!

6

Maybe I'm missing something in the cannibalism debate. Cannibalism has the unfortunate aspect of murdering your meal before eating it. That seems slightly different than taking a kidney from someone who died because of reasons other than organ harvesting, or even a voluntary donation of a kidney or perhaps part of a liver. Now, if we find out that people are murdering organ donars for their organs, maybe I can get on board with that.

The current (alleged) practice by the Chinese government to sell the organs of executed felons is almost applicable here, but I think it fails to convince. It seems to me that the issue is Chinese justice, not what is done with the piece parts of the executed. If the Chinese are justified in executing felons, then disposing of the parts by selling them is of no more concern than burying or cremating the remains. FYI, I am pro-death penalty, but probably not as inclusive as the Chinese about who should be executed.

Another FYI: the Donner party and those poor soccer players up in the Andes, I am willing to cut them some slack. There is no evidence that they killed their meals before eating them. Survival is different from the ritual of cannibalism. Or so it seems to me.

7

"Antiwitness" should be required reading for all Campus Crusaders. Excellent.

8

Heh heh heh heh. He linked to a link that features "J. P. Holding,, who has been roundly discredited on the 'net ever since he went to "defend" "Josh" McDowell's sadly badly written "Evidence that Demands a Verdict."

9

Over on the EO Forum, I've just put up a post suggesting that Parableman may be wrong when he writes that the Bible gives only the Earth to humanity for stewardship.

10

2. The wrongness of cannibalism consists in treating the human body as a mere object for use, a source of supply, rather than as an entity valuable in itself.

Yet I think we want to think twice about what we mean by human body. A toenail clipping came from a human body but isn't a human body in itself. Should you bite your nails you are not 'using your body as a mere object'....even if you bite your friends nails you're not guilty of that!

So I think instead of 'human body' we should say 'human life'. So killing a person to eat them is morally wrong. Using a kidney to save a human life is not using another human life as an object (unless you're killing that human life to get the parts).

My response: Premise 2 proves too much. The child in the womb treats the human body as a mere object, a source of supply, yet pregnancy is not morally wrong.

The problem with your response is whether or not you consider the child in the womb a human beign yet the fact remains the child has no ability that we are aware of to choose whether or not to 'treat the human body as a mere object, a source of supply...'. The process by which an unborn child 'uses' the mothers body is entirely involuntary. No ability to make a choice means no moral judgement.

In extreme cases such as the Donner Party or that soccar team struck in the mountains few people have seriously asserted that cannibalism was wrong. People do feel generally that cannibalism is wrong (assuming all deaths here are natural) if there is no pressing need for it. So a fast food made out of human remains would probably never take off if we were not in some type of strange famine environment.

11

So is the plan now to lobby Congress to prevent organ donations? Obviously, liberals are cannibals because they would support organ donations.

12

Joe:

"seasonal allergies, antihistamines, a teenager"? As I remember the buzz when this commercial came out, this young lady was reckoned as "high" by the majority of Apple users -- and championed for being three drags to the wind.

Of course, I like your explanation because it's sweet -- innocent in a really nice way. I could be wrong, of course, but, like, kuhh.

13

There were different forms of cannibalism...yes there were those who hunted other humans to eat their flesh but there are also other lesser known manifestation of this practice...some cultures believed that the spirit of their dead still resided in the organs of the deceased and that putting those in the earth would have been a horrible thing to do so the deceased's close relative ate those organs so that the spirit of their departed loved ones would remain with them.

14

All:

Mumon is seriously off base, sadly, as usual:

Heh heh heh heh. He linked to a link that features "J. P. Holding,, who has been roundly discredited on the 'net ever since he went to "defend" "Josh" McDowell's sadly badly written "Evidence that Demands a Verdict."

First, this is a case of attacking a man for linking to a promo on a conference that in turn links a site by an Apologist who is featured in the Conference. That itself is a questionable basis for mocking Joe.

I think it is fair comment to observe that JPH has raised serious issues in a responsible way, as can be seen from his rather large site [which has in it any exchanges with various skeptics, at length], and has a right to appear in a serious conference. And, that despite my unhappiness with his sometimes mocking tone.

Further, JPH is far from an across-the-board endorsement of the McDowell work.

I note:

1] Holding regards McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict as more or less an introductory effort ["recommended for beginners"], one with serious flaws [as can be seen from various remarks he makes all over his site and in the review linked above, though some of what he complains of is addressed in the 1999 update . . .]. An honest look through the Tektonics site will show that very rapidly.

Here, for istance, is an excerpt from JPH's report on a brief interview with JMcD:

Now I had actually planned to make a further clarification, but McDowell, as you know if you've seen him speak, is one big, raw bundle of energy. I didn't have time to clarify before he started answering. He wrote ETDAV, he said, for two reasons. The first was to help Christians understand what they believed, and why they believed it. The second reason was to give non-Christians a place to start looking into Christianity . . . . I asked McDowell directly: "Are believers supposed to use ETDAV as a direct evangelistic tool?" The answer McDowell gave was no -- ETDAV was not intended for that purpose, although he had written More Than A Carpenter to serve that kind of pupose, the way a tract might serve. Even so, he added, more important than giving a person a book is sharing one's "personal testimony" with others -- i.e., explaining "what Christ has done in your life." "I never start with ETDAV," McDowell told me. "Nobody ever comes to the gospel because of evidence."

--> This last, of course reflects the point that the demons believe that there is one God but are fixed in their rebellion against him. That is, no-one comes to God in the face of Jesus, save by the pull of the Spirit of God.

2] We are also looking at a well-/mind- poisoning game here.

* A young friend of mine recently bought a copy of the new edition of ETDAV, which introduces philosophical issues and integrates the discussion of hyperskeptical theology that used to be in a second volume.

* I find that this revision addresses several major concerns I had with the original, but then, back in the 70's, taking up of worldview level issues at a semi-popular level was just then being pioneered by the likes of Francis Schaeffer.

* Further to this, the ETDAV's classic trilemma, Lord or liar or lunatic -- and this is going all the way back to the 70's -- is presented in a context that has ALREADY raised and at an introductory level addressed the questions of "legend" and basic credibility of the textual witness. In short, the major objection commonly made to the central argument ETDAV makes is a strawman attack. [Cf my own intro-level discussion here, and a more sophisticated one here; guess which one is in the context of basic training of Christian leaders, why?]

* On the strength of that examination, I actually bought a copy of the "new" [1999] edn, precisely for use in the context of training at an introductory level. I find JPH is basically correct in his estimation.

* This also reminds me of how in an earlier thread, someone in ignorance cited a UK atheist site that tried to brush aside another book, instead of addressing the major inference to best historical explanation point in the excerpt I had used. I followed up, and soon realised that the book being critiques bore scant resemblance to the one in my hand: a strawman attack designed to poison the well. I pointed this out.

+++++++++++++

In short, Mr Holding is only "discredited" -- notice onliookers: not refuted -- in the minds of those who resort to strawman tactics instead of seriously engaging the issues he has raised on the merits of material fact and logical analysis -- deductive, inductive and abductive.

I invite Mumon to move up to a higher level.

++++++

Grace, open our eyes

Gordon

15

JPH has raised serious issues in a responsible way...

Stop! you're killing me...and looking at the websites of the other people at that "conference" it appears that they are of the same stature, or should I say "ilk" as "Holding."

Those of us who've been around for a while remember "Holding" and the skewering he received as he tried to defend McDowell.

"Notice onlookers": Holding has been roundly, soundly, completely and utterly discredited; this is why he's never linked to the Internet Infidels website.

And, no, you never even scratched the surface with the reams of text you posted, Gordon. Never came close. Nobody can claim with any certainty that any given part of the bible is "true," unless it's taken as axiomatic, which you do. Most of the world doesn't (even many, if not most Christians), and for good reasons.

I myself have read McDowell, and it is one of the worst books I've ever read; I simply cannot understand why anybody places any credence in folks like him.

McDowell can only be read as a kind of post-modernist evangelical Glas, with nothing but arguments from authority standing in for any kind of reasoning. Every time I open that "book" I am astounded by the intellectual dishonesty, the lack of organization, the lack of logic, and the pretensiousness that permeates every printed symbol on every page.

Seriously, Gordon, if I were a Christian, I'd recommend Kierkegaard's Training in Christianity," or Hans Kung's On Being a Christian, over this dreck. Even C.S. Lewis writes better (though he still does the trilemma fallacy). At least Lewis has the courage and honesty to use Tertullian's argument in favor of Christianity: "I believe because it is absurd."

That argument, I can respect, though not accept.

16

By the way, here is a wonderful skewering of J. P. Holding's logical errors with the trilemma fallacy.

17

Mumon [and onlookers]:

Your reaction has been ever so sadly predictable.

And all in response to my pointing out that JPH's remarks on ETDAV amount to a highly qualified approval of it as a book suitable for beginners in dealing with issues of Christianity and evidence relating to it. Though, he notes that this is often enough for the sort of questions that a great many real-world people have.

I will note briefly for the benefit of onlookers:

1] Nobody can claim with any certainty that any given part of the bible is "true," unless it's taken as axiomatic, which you do.

--> First, "certainty" -- a rather high degree of confidence, and "truth" -- correspondence with the reality [saying of what is, that it is, and of what is not that it is not, as Ari put it], are on very distinct dimensions. It is possible to be "certain" of falsehood, and to be doubtful or even denying of truth.

--> Second, no-one who has taken time to read my remarks here, here or even here can honestly say that I am taking the Bible as true "axiomatically." Rather I have pointed out that we are dealing with foundational worldview level issues and that underlying comparative difficulties challenges should not be begged, especially through selective hyperskepticism.

--> As an engineer who has had to address matters of the phil of science, I am sure you are aware that our confidence in scientific claims is based on the logic of inference to best explanation, where the preferred theory gives the best balance of factual adequacy, logical coherence and lack of either being simplistic or ad hoc.

--> This is of course precisely not an argument to proof but an argument to confidence, as thee flow of the logical implication and the flow of empirical support run in opposed directions: THEORY => Facts, Facts support theory provisionally. [To read this as a proof is to affirm the consequent in logic! As I discuss even at basic level, starting with 4th formers in science I have taught.]

--> Inference to best explanation is the commonest pattern of credibility in knowledge on matters of fact. In particular, on matters of history and fact, I have highlighted [echoing Simon Greenleaf and a great many others] that we look at competing explanations and the issue of inference to best explanation, so that in the class of issues with which the Bible and the gospel account in particular are concerned, we see again that faith and reason are inextricably intertwined so that the issue is not whether faith but which faith and why relative to other options.

--> So we see here a strawman misrepresentation designed to poison minds to what I have to say. This is sad, as you have now had several months -- over a year in fact -- to confirm the facts of the matter before self-servingly mischaracterising my thinking.

2] Holding has been roundly, soundly, completely and utterly discredited

--> Onlookers, note again the basic problem -- Mumon is speaking in terms of rhetoric, not the weight of the case on facts and logic.

--> In short, JPH has been dismissed by those who play selective hyperskeptical games, precisely because they have loaded the dice. [The linked cases in point are sadly, aptly illustrative.]

--> On the strength of such cases I can full well understand why he does not take Infidels.org seriously. I do not, nor does anyone of consequence, save to see how rhetorical games play out. As Ari warned in his The Rhetoric:

Of the modes of persuasion furnished by the spoken word there are three kinds. The first kind depends on the personal character of the speaker [ethos]; the second on putting the audience into a certain frame of mind [pathos]; the third on the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech itself [logos]. Persuasion is achieved by the speaker's personal character when the speech is so spoken as to make us think him credible . . . Secondly, persuasion may come through the hearers, when the speech stirs their emotions. Our judgements when we are pleased and friendly are not the same as when we are pained and hostile . . . Thirdly, persuasion is effected through the speech itself when we have proved a truth or an apparent truth by means of the persuasive arguments suitable to the case in question . . . .

--> On the matter of the central issue of the Christian contention, Jesus' death, burial and resurrection, I invite onlookers to start a more serious look at the matter by reading Yamauchi and Craig at the Leader U site that is maintained by the same Campus Crusade organisation McDowell works for, to address the more serious level of issues. [Take a wide look around in the site to see how the sort of issues advanced by Infidels.org are dealt with at a more advanced level than you will read in say ETDAV. But one has to start somewhere, at an introductory level, thus the utility of ETDAV.]

3] McDowell . . . [makes] nothing but arguments from authority standing in for any kind of reasoning.

--> First, on matters of history and accounts of fact generally, we are looking at testimony and interpretations of remnants from the past, which of course means that issues of authority are central: facts are established as credible or not based on the quality of witnesses.

--> In short, Mumon is here posing a false dilemma between appeals to authority and appeals to reason. The issue on such matters of fact, sir, is whose report do you believe, why, leading to which explanation best accounts for the credible facts. In short, appeals to credible authority are inherent to historical knowledge.

--> However as well, in the revised 1999 edn, as the state of the game moves on, even ETDAV has an introductory section on philosophical issues, complete with apologies in advance for the fact that it is precisely introductory. infidels.org and the like wish to get away with strawman games.

--> The underlying problem for this thread is, evidently,that M wishes to implicitly impose a begging of the question: Hume's classic circle of argument from firm experience shows that the laws of nature are exceptionless to accounts of miracles are therefore to be dismissed.

--> We neither know the first nor can we rely upon it to dismiss the second without first assessing the credibility of testimony relative to internal and external coherence.

--> To wit, on the case of the resurrection, ordinary common men may know if a sequence in time runs A -> B -> C - > D. Similarly, most such men can tell a live from a dead man, based on five good senses plus common sense. In the case in view, the sequence is that Jesus was betrayed, taken, kangaroo-courted and executed -- with a spear-thrust to make sure [and separation of blood in the vitals is strong proof of death], then buried in a known tomb and guarded by his enemies. On the third day, he was seen to be very much alive, and interacting with the astonished and at first unbelieving disciples [don't forget Peter and John's “old wives tales of hysterical women”!], eventually appearing with over 500 at the same time [as is probably recounted in incidental details in Matt 28]. This is the core dynamic that drives the witness of the C1 church starting from Jerusalem.

--> the further fact is, that in the teeth of the hostile camarilla in Jerusalem, the might of Rome and the dismissals of the Greek intelligentsia, the Gospel message waxed strong and prevailed, from ~ AD 30 on. No theory of the death and origin of the resurrection narrative an belief that cannot explain that success is credible.

--> NONE of the usual skeptical stories [wrong tomb, stolen body, swoon, hallucination etc] trotted out by infidels.org or the like are able to account for the facts, or hang together coherently, without resorting to the self-refuting fallacy of selective hyperskepticism. In Simon Greenleaf's words – and here I cite him as a real authority, i.e. a founding father of the modern Anglophone theory of jurisprudence, whose massive tome on the subject of Evidence is still on sale for an impressive price:

In the ordinary affairs of life we do not require nor expect demonstrative evidence, because it is inconsistent with the nature of matters of fact, and to insist on its production would be unreasonable and absurd . . . The error of the skeptic consists in pretending or supposing that there is a difference in the nature of things to be proved; and in demanding demonstrative evidence concerning things which are not susceptible of any other than moral evidence alone, and of which the utmost that can be said is, that there is no reasonable doubt about their truth . . . . [Testimony of the Evangelists]

--> THAT inconsistency is why those who resort to such rhetorical tactics are not taken seriously in informed circles -- but of course that does not mean that those who are willing to use the usual long since failed and exploded skeptical “explanations” are unable to persuade and/or intimidate the uninformed. [And indeed, surprise, a major part of the best argumentation in ETDAV is that it exposes these skeptical stories at an introductory level. Onlookers: see why there is a well-poisoning attempt?]

3] Trilemmas, Lewis and co

--> First, FYI, Lewis, Schaeffer, Craig, Yamauchi, Moreland and Plantinga, etc are far more my level of reading that McDowell, as has been noted.

--> As to the "absurdity" of the Christian faith, my comment is that mystery is not to be confused with absrdity in the logical sense, much less clashing with one's particular presumptions and presuppositions -- as Paul warns of in 1 Cor 1 - 2. The Christian life begins, therefore, with metanoia: a profound, intellectually and morally tinged change of outlook and course of life, from being wise in one's eyes, to God's foolishness that in the end is wiser than men.

--> I also took time to look at the linked "refutation" on the trilemma argument. It is, unfortunately an instance of the triumph of rhetoric over reason, mostly by way of distractors and personal attacks compounded by trivia.

--> For the sake of onlookers, I will simply summarise a bit on the force of the trilemma and why the likes of a C S Lewis was impressed by it – indeed, it is he who formulated/popularised it in the modern trilemma form – Mc Dowell is simply citing Lewis and expanding on details, having first addressed he historicity issue [and in the vol 2, the skeptical Bible criticism]:

a] It is highly credible that Jesus lived, ministered and initiated the Christian movement at the turn of the 30s, AD; in the geographical region often known as Palestine, especially in Galilee, Judaea and the capital, Jerusalem, where he was executed and buried.

b] It is equally highly credible that the NT as we have it reports accurately the message and general progress of that movement in its first century -- a progress that is highly difficult to explain coherently on the usual skeptical assumptions and assertions.

c] The core of that message, as summarised in the AD 55 epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, i.e. in 1 Cor 15, and credibly dating to the mid 30s in the apostolic circle in Jerusalem, is the salvific death, burial and resurrection of Jesus in fulfillment of the Scriptures [most notably Is 53, ~ 700 BC].

d] In the teeth of fire and sword, that message waxed strong and prevailed in a world that as 1 Cor 1 notes, had Greeks to whom a resurrection was foolishness [i.e. due to platonic-derived pre-Gnostic influences that denigrated the body, popularly as the prison of the soul], and Jews to whom a crucifixion was proof positive of being accursed by God [i.e. as a form of hanging, with the explicit statement in the Mosaic law that one who is hanged on a tree is accursed of God -- note the Pauline discussion in say Gal etc].

e] In this context, the Christian contention has ever been, in the words of Paul to the Romans AD 57: Rom 1:1 . . . the gospel of God-- 2 the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3 regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, 4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. 5 Through him and for his name's sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith.

f] Now, "Lord," in this context is of course a title of Deity. [Indeed, only some 25 years earlier the same Paul had been putting Christians to death on the accusation of blasphemy, elevating a "justly" accursed and crucified heretic to Deity. His conversion as recounted in the report of hte well-supported as accurate Luke, in Ac 9, 22, 25 - 5 is telling.]

g] Thus, we face the trilemma: Jesus is real, the church is real, the gospel message as we have it is authentic to the C1, and waxed strong and prevailed while cutting across the deepest worldview commitments of the day in the dominant intellectual and monotheistic subcultures. Why?

h] So, we face three options, given that it is easy enough to show that Jesus on the living-witness lifetime and reasonable agfe for accurate reporting primary accounts -- including those of his enemies -- did indeed claim the attributrses of Deity and was understood to have done that by his followers:

I: LORD: he knew and spoke the truth about himself, demonstrating it by rising from the dead with power.

II: LIAR: He knew he was not what he claimed to be, but somehow tricked his followers and started a movement that spread across the world, even in the immediate city where he had been tried and executed.

III: LUNATIC: He was delusional, believing sincerely that he, a mere man, was what he could not have been -- God, in the full sense of that term within the Hebraic tradition.

i] But, of course, Jesus fits neither the profiles of the wily deceiver nor the delusional madman. Further, in neither of these cases is it plausible that the Christian movement could have had the start and success that it plainly has had. nor do the old fashioned skeptical theories to dismiss the resurrection stand the clear light of day on serious cross-examination.

j] Thus the challenge of the skeptic -- to brush aside option I without resorting to II or III which are plainly beyond the pale of credibility. To that, the usual resort recently has been to an "option IV," some sort of legend, based on hallucinations and the like. But that does not account for the success of the church starting in Jerusalem circa 30 AD -- the issue of the missing body and empty tomb become central here, as Morison pointed out long ago, and as Craig also aptly pointed out.

k] So, sadly, we see the reason for the persistent skeptic's eagerness to poison the well, by DISCREDITING the sources and the people who argue the case. [Hint to Mumon: anytime you find yourself inferring that C S Lewis long maintained a seriously fallacious or logically absurd position, that is a sign that you have missed the mark. You may disagree with his facts, but his logic, over the long haul, was pressed to become coherent at all costs. THAT after all, is a key part of why he bacame a reluctant Christian.]

+++++++++

Now, the above is hardly likely to be persuasive to Mumon, who is notoriously selectively hyperskeptrical over what does not fit his view on things; so, why have I bothered?

ANS: For the sake of onlookers, so they can see what is going on behind the bravado, bluster and brushing aside.

++++++++

Grace, open our eyes

Gordon

18

Onlookers:

For your enjoyment you may wish to look at the survey argument here, esp Sections IX - XII. Also, here.

GEM

19

The child in the womb treats the human body as a mere object, a source of supply, yet pregnancy is not morally wrong.

Good insight. But, for that very reason, it is not morally mandatory. Neither is it morally mandatory to allow, or continue to allow, one's body to be treated in this fashion - for precisely the reason you cite.

the fact remains the child has no ability that we are aware of to choose whether or not to 'treat the human body as a mere object, a source of supply...'. The process by which an unborn child 'uses' the mothers body is entirely involuntary. No ability to make a choice means no moral judgement.

More than that: the fetus not only lacks the ability to consider and control its own bodily processes, it lacks awareness of them, as well as awareness of its surroundings, experiences, and its own self. It is not merely morally non-responsible, it has no moral interests either. It's not a moral person at all.

Which only weakens even further its claim to take possession of an actual person's body for its own use without their consent.

20

One further thing: the original argument is incoherent anyway.

If cannibalism is wrong axiomatically (i.e., as a basic logical premise, not the result of logical argument from other premises), then Premise #2 has no meaning at all. There cannot be some fact or principle which constitutes the wrongness of cannibalism - it's wrong because it is stipulated axiomatically to be wrong.

And, ignoring this, even if the wrongness of cannibalism consists in its treating the body as an object, andorgan transplantation does the same thing and is therefore wrong also, then the logical structure of the argument simply concludes that "organ transplantation is wrong because it treats the body as an object". Cannibalism has nothing to do with it. You could strip all the stuff about cannibalism out of the argument and it would actually make more sense.

All she really needs to say is "Treating the body as an object is always wrong"; "Organ transplants treats the body as an object"; "Therefore organ transplants are always wrong." That's coherent and logically valid. (Of course, as others have pointed out, the first premise is false - you often want and need to treat your body as an object - so the argument is still unsound. But at least it makes sense this way.) In this argument, also, you can plausibly assert the first premise as an axiom (you wouldn't want to, but you could), unlike the cannibalism thing, which is clearly ad hoc.

It's possible that the author has mistaken the word "axiom" ("assumed true without grounding on fact or logic") for "inarguable" ("true beyond dispute"), but that's hardly an excuse. And even so, as I noted, the cannibalism premise is unnecessary and distorts the argument, whether it's axiomatic or not. She seems to believe she has come up with a new and clever implication from an obvious moral truth. In fact, her "axiomatic" truth is not obvious and not axiomatic, and plays no part, strictly speaking, in the argument she attempts to adduce from it. All she really has is a very simple and mundane claim about "treating the body as an object" - one which, as it happens, nobody is likely to accept.

21

Wrote the following for the "antiwitness" screen=d

What a load of self-serving unctious horsecrap!

“Stu” backslid because he decided to backslid, because he’s an autonomous individual who chose the carnal over the sprirtual. “Stu” is a big boy who made big boy decisions. He didn’t backslide because the person who informed him of the gospel didn’t adequately brainwash him. Jesus taught that some seed would spring up too fast and wither away. If that what he said, then we can assume that even He was powerless to prevent some from falling away.

If there are any “anti-witnesses” here, it’s the people witnessing to college kids on a bender during Spring Break. Every good salesmen knows that to sell a product (1) identify people who would be interested in your product, and (2) identify to those people why the products meets their desires. Yet too often, evangelists do the exact opposite: go find the people most uninterested in spiritual matters, then yell and scream at them about how they need to change everything about themselves. It makes the evangelist feel all warm and fuzzy that they’re “witnessing to sinners”, but accomplishes nothing and throws pearls to swine. The few converts the find, like “Stu”, unsuprisingly go back the way they were.

We’re creating “anti-witnesses” because we’re not communal enough and aren’t self-sacrificing enough? Son, if communalism measured the sprituality of a population, then North Korea would be the most holy country on the face of the Earth. There is no such thing as a “relational, community faith”. Only an individual can believe or think, not a group. If you want to make the church grow, stop asking people to flagellate and kill themselves for the Lord, and instead show them how a relationship with God will benefit them and their house.

Maybe I was a little harsh on the guy, but with all the stuff I've been through in the last few years, I'm sick of hearing some high holy Mr. Flanders tell me that I need to sacrifice more and be more communal.

22

All:

Posting troubles at 2 - 3 am . ..

A few footnotish thoughts . . .

1] JPH and Infidels

Decided to fact check Mumon's claim that JPH has never linked infidels.org. Did a picosearch from his opening page. 22 references, and for instance, the Dan Barker essay links to infidels.org right in the opening section.

Further to this, the very first hit contains a mangled link, in Ref 89, to file:///C:/WINDOWS/TEMP/www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_mccabe/religious_controversy/chapter_07.html#4, which on cleaning up goes straight to the relevant portion of a page in infidels.org. Refs 132, 137, 138 - 141 similarly go to Infidels.org.

Yet further to this, there are several interactions with activists posting at infidels hosted within Tektonics, including this 2003 collection of interactions towards mutual understanding and, hopefully, respect.

I think Mumon needs to do some explaining on his claim above: Holding has been roundly, soundly, completely and utterly discredited; this is why he's never linked to the Internet Infidels website.

Similarly, he may wish to examine JPH's -- and BTW, it is an acknowledged pseudonym [a long, and sometimes positively important tradition in academic discourse; even Plato, strictly is not the proper name of the famous philosopher!] -- discussion of the trilemma argument here before dismissing JPH further as “discredited.” Indeed, his remarks at this page on the targetting of both ETDAV and Stroebel's Case for Christ are telling:

It was not that long ago that this page got its start by launching a counter to the Secular Web's rebuttal to Josh McDowell's Evidence That Demands a Verdict. One of our primary points -- expressed throughout our own response -- was that in tackling ETDAV, the SecWebbers were choosing an "easy target" and ignoring more detailed scholarship that generally confirmed McDowell's overall case. The Sec Web may be brave enough to tackle McDowell, all right, but we will never see the jury come in on the likes of Ben Witherington and N. T. Wright -- it's much harder to put a judge on trial! Skeptics, it seems, never learn their lessons. Lee Strobel's Case for Christ is a major step up from McDowellish material; yet it is still a popular work that is backed up by more detailed scholarship, and unlike ETDAV, does provide a path to those who offer more detailed scholarship. There is no excuse here for not knowing about the works of Witherington, et al. for lack of reference.

I also would also love to see Mumon's response to my remarks on selective hyperskepticism and the philospher's toolkit, as previously linked. He may wish to start with the following comment on appeals to authority, in context:

Authority: Moreover, appeals to authority -- starting with a good dictionary or credible eyewitnesses, teachers and other technical experts -- are a practical necessity for almost all real-world arguments; so we must discipline ourselves to authenticate the “authorities” we appeal to. We should also be alert to bias, mistakes, debatable assumptions and other limitations. For, a good authority can save us much time and effort, and when in doubt, if an authority is credible, it may well be wise indeed to heed his or her opinion. (For instance, that is often the critical issue in matters of history, where selective hyper-skepticism can lead to systematic and foolish inconsistencies when one gives in to the temptation to be unreasonably skeptical about claims one is not comfortable with. Modern biblical studies, sadly, provides a capital case in point.)

2] Cannibalism:

I think this is a serious issue, but the underlying point is that the sacredness of the human person as made in the image of God has been undermined in the culture, thus the undermining of respect and rights.

I am not so sure as KTK that "the fetus" is unaware, but the point that the fetus has not made a choice to subsist in the mother's womb means that the fetus' dependence on the mother is not for it a moral issue. The behaviour of the mother, father, family and community to their in-utero offspring, however, is most definitely a moral issue.

And the 47 million dead unbporn and counting since Row V Wade is a heavy matter for such accounting for the USA.

3] Anti-witness

Themistocles, welcome. [Quite a name to live up to!]

I am not so sure that we are AUTONOMOUS == literally, a law unto ourselves. We are participants in the common human nature and community, which sets the context for our moral duties to one another, e.g. love does no harm. Community is an integral part of our human nature, and implies obligations tot he long term good of both individuals and the community as a whole on which the individuals depend. (For instance, that is the context where it can become one's duty to serve in the armed forces, even in the face of a war in which one is likely to die, in the cause of the protection of justice.)

Further to this, I think groups can and do think and believe together in ways that are not simply reducible to the ways in which the individuals in them think and/or believe. For, we exert influences on one another, and can achieve synergies for good or ill. In missiology for instance it is recognised that mutually supportive, simultaneous, multiple individual conversions can be as valid and sustainable as individual conversions -- this is what often happens in high trust high mutuality communities.

Biblically as well, it is plain that one of the major resources for stabilising and developing commitment and spirtual maturity is the multi-individual, multi-function, mutually dependent/supportive body of Christ, complete with complementary spiritual gifts. The NT knows nothing of discipleship without community.

North Korea etc are not examples of such community, but instead exemplify tyranny and an idolatrous demand for blind followership of antichrist figures: false political messiahs and their lying, destructive ideologies. [Looks a lot like marxism is again stirring noisily in its shallow and anything but quiet grave.]

Finally, I think it is fair to note that our duty to witness to all men does include speaking the truth to those who are unpromising and hostile. Including most famously a certain Stephen who spoke in the sysnagogue of the freedmen with a circle of opponents who included those from Cilicia. Tarsus, of course, was the capital of Cilicia, and its most famous son then in Jerusalem was a certain Saul..

++++++++++

Trust these foot-notes are helpful

Grace to all

Gordon

23

Where did you get the idea that her homework paper was about Chinatowns? If there's an extended version of that commercial somewhere, I want to see it. What is it that makes her pronounce her 'p's that way? I wonder if the ad people knew that was hip dialect and found an actor or if they found an actor who had the hip dialect. And how many takes she did saying "It was a really good p)ap)er" every time.

24

Gordon:

"Onlookers" can visit both sites and judge for themselves.

As for "arguments from authority," where we have not the time or ability to pursue the knowledge others have, one often uses them as shortcuts, to one's own risk. In all things, caveat emptor. In the case of McDowell, it's especially ridiculous, because his "authorities" all, to a man, start from the same bag of trick. (I didn't mistype there. It's only a single trick: you just keep repeating to yourself: this text is inerrant, this text is inerrant, and hope it is.)

Really, I was only being charitable in describing folks like Geisler as "authorities."

Anybody who uses their brains as a substitute for their own deserves what they get.

25

Onlookers:

Mumon, sadly, only reveals his own lack of soundness ands hostility in the above -- notice his silence on the checked facts and the material issues, not to mention his plainly unwarranted personal attacks on JPH, others int he conference mentioned above, myself and now Geisler.

It seems that, even more sadly, in his world, if you disagree with his positions, regardless of your qualifications and achievements, you are an idiot or worse. In short, he is from the Dawkins school of rhetoric: those who disagree with him are necessarily ignorant and/or stupid and/or insane and/or wicked.

On very good reason, and as further demonstrated in this thread in which you set out to attack Mr Holding by poisoning the well, I beg to differ, Mumon.

We should now draw the sad but plainly well-warranted logical conclusion: Mumon is DEMONSTRABLY not a credible, accurate, reliable, or charitable witness on facts or the state of a case on logic and ethics, so his assertions should be severely tested and corroborated before being taken seriously.

Before closing off this note I will make a further comment on the inescapability and importance of the use of credible authority in real world arguments:

a] C S Lewis, long ago now, pointed out that 99+% of real world arguments rely on appeals to one authority or another.

b] Indeed, it is not hard to see why: for at the outset, none of us finite and fallible thinkers is capable of acquiring language and linguistically/symbolically expressed reasoning without relying on a great many credible witnesses and other authorities: parents, teachers, text and reference books, reports, etc etc etc. 99+ % is conservative, in short. [The real issue as Aristotle so eloquently showed in his The Rhetoric, is the perceived CREDIBILITY of one authority over against another, in a context where minds can be so poisoned that we refuse to listen to those we perceive with hostility or contempt. THAT is why it is so important to expose M's well-poisoning for what it is.]

c] In the case of warranting a claim, we rapidly can see that to support a given claim A we need facts, evidence arguments and explanations B to sustain it in the teeth of challenge. But then why should we accept B? That leads to C, D, . . .

d] So we either have an impossible infinite regress of attempts to warrant a claim, or we come to a point where some things are taken as true without further "proof." That is, we have in practice all got faith points, F1, F2, etc, based on what William James so eloquently summed up as forced, momentous choices across live options. These choices on core beliefs define our worldviews.

e] Does that mean that in the end all argumets are circular and reasoned discussion is hopeless? No, as we may exert comparative difficulties across competing core worldview claims: factual adequacy, coherence, simplicity vs ad hocness or simplisticness.

f] So, we can have reasonable faith, and since all major worldview options bristle with difficulties and mysteries, we should recognise that well-informed people of different persuasions may often have very good reasons for their different faith points.

g] Respect leading to dialogue constrained by logic and ethics, rather than contempt-filled well-poisoning rhetoric, is therefore warranted -- even in cases where as with evolutionary materialism or pantheism [which includes at least some buddhist positions], there is a serious and credible case that the positions are hopelessly self-referentially inconsistent. [BTW, after Plantinga, 30+ years ago, the classic basis for asserting the same about the JudaeoChristian worldview, demonstrably fails.

In short, authority in reasoning is inescapable, but no authority is better than his or her "facts" and reasoning.

+++++++++

Grace, open our eyes

26

Gordon:

As I mentioned on my blog, I'm at ISIT-2006 (Dembski of course is nowhere to be found), and knee deep in some fundamental research.

I simply don't have time for you.

27

Onlookers:

I took time to look up Geisler [who for some odd reason I have never had occasion to own a book by . . . but maybe M's dismissal and disdain are indicia that I have been missing something important and valuable.]

A telling link was to this very blog's know your Evangelicals series, and in commenting on this person with a distiguished 50-year career that includes being founding president of the Evangelical Philosphical Society and being president of a Seminary, here is M's contribution:

I still find Geisler enormously simplistic despite the abundance of items with his name on it.

But then again, Benedict XVI also doesn't impress me either. . . .

bfinlay:

Sorry that it affects you; but there's many thinkers who are substantially deeper than Geisler.

In other words, sadly, M again sought to dismiss with a drive by snide remark and thus well-poison, rather than to honestly and seriously engage.

Samples of of Geisler's thinking are to be found here, here, here and here. There may well be other deeper thinkers out there on these issues, but he is not a lightweight imbecile who has not done his homework, by any means.

+++++++++

GEM

PS Take a look here at a sample article from the site for one of the speakers with JPH for that announced conference. Again, this is not a lightweight imbecile who has not done his homework.

28

Joe,

It appears I forgot to thank you for the link to my post at Cerulean Sanctum.

A belated thank you!

29

Onlookers:

I think I should also observe on the swipe M makes at at Dr William Dembski for failing to attend an IEEE -- i.e. largely electrical and electronics engineers [and those practising in close enough fields, which includes mathematics] -- Symposium on Information Theory. (NB: What follows also shows how easy – and dirty – is the quick ad hominem, relative to the work required to responsibly address an issue.)

This is, again, a case of habitually seeking to poison the well, or more accurately, to poison minds against drinking from a well that has in it perfectly good water. This suppression of unwelcome truth is what Paul warned us about in Rom 1 – and note here that the inference to Design [as opposed to, to God] is controversial not because it is so far out of what we can credibly do, but because it lends support to the wider philosophical issues and inferences that surface once we see that nature has marks in it of a vastly powerful and intelligent master craftsman]:

RO 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

RO 1:21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened . . . . RO 1:28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

To illustrate the force of the point in this specific case, I first note that the underlying challenge M obviously wishes to make on the observation that functionally specified, complex information as a reliable sign of intelligent ACTION, was first raised by the pagan thinker, Cicero, in C1 BC:

Is it possible for any man to behold these things, and yet imagine that certain solid and individual bodies move by their natural force and gravitation, and that a world so beautifully adorned was made by their fortuitous concourse? He who believes this may as well believe that if a great quantity of the one-and-twenty letters, composed either of gold or any other matter, were thrown upon the ground, they would fall into such order as legibly to form the Annals of Ennius. I doubt whether fortune could make a single verse of them. How, therefore, can these people assert that the world was made by the fortuitous concourse of atoms, which have no color, no quality—which the Greeks call [poiotes], no sense? [Cicero, THE NATURE OF THE GODS BK II Ch XXXVII, C1 BC, as trans Yonge (Harper & Bros., 1877), pp. 289 - 90.]

In my own semi-popular level discussion, which this excerpt leads, I make reference to basic info theory concepts and how we draw th einference that a signal has been sent, now that one has been received and detected by functioning in some sort of receiving system.

The key point I made on the Info theory inference as it reates ot the inference to design from functionally specific, complex information, is:

let us now consider in a little more detail a situation where an apparent message is received. What does that mean? What does it imply about the origin of the message . . . or, is it just noise that "got lucky"? . . . .

it is of course entirely possible, that the apparent message is nothing but a lucky burst of noise that somehow got through the Internet and reached your machine. That is, it is logically and physically possible [i.e. neither logic nor physics forbids it] that every apparent message you have ever got across the Internet -- including not just web pages but also even emails you have received -- is nothing but chance and luck: there is no intelligent source that intends to send such a message, all is just lucky noise.

But, none of us actually lives or can live as though s/he seriously believes that: absent absolute proof to the contrary, we must believe that all is noise. [To see the force of this, consider an example posed by Swinburne. You are sitting in a railway carriage and seeing stones you believe to have been randomly arranged, spelling out: "WELCOME TO WALES." Would you believe the apparent message? Why or why not?]

Q: Why then do we believe in intelligent sources behind the web pages and email messages that we receive, etc., since we cannot ultimately absolutely prove that such is the case?

ANS: Because we believe the odds of such "lucky noise" happening by chance are so small, that we intuitively simply ignore it. That is, we all recognise that if an apparent message is contingent [it did not have to be as it is], is functional within the context of communication, and is sufficiently complex that it is highly unlikely to have happened by chance, then it is much better to accept the explanation that it is what it appears to be -- a message originating in an intelligent [though perhaps not wise!] source -- than to revert to "chance" as the default assumption. Technically, we compare how close the received signal is to legitimate messages, and then decide that it is likely to be the "closest" such message. (All of this can be quantified, but this intuitive level discussion is enough for our purposes.)

In short, we all intuitively and even routinely accept that Functionally Specified, Complex Information, FSCI, is a signature of messages originating in intelligent sources.

Thus, if we then try to dismiss the study of such inferences to design as "unscientific," we are plainly being grossly inconsistent. . . . For in fact, the issue in the communication situation once an apparent message is in hand is: inference to (a) intelligent -- as opposed to supernatural -- agency [signal] vs. (b) chance-process [noise]. Moreover, at least since Cicero, we have recognised that the presence of functionally specified complexity in such an apparent message helps us make that decision.

Dr Dembski's "failure" to attend any given IEEE conference is utterly irrelevant to the force of this issue -- an issue he has addressed, one that he has long since repeatedly and powerfully argued at peer-reviewed level.

In short, sadly but not surprisigly, we have in hand yet another case in point of Mumon's attempt to poison minds agaist those who would make a case that he wishes to suppress.

++++++++++++++

Grace, open our eyes

GEM

30

Mummmmmon: Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to come to EO, scroll down to this thread, open the comments section, and type in a comment to let us all know that you are too busy to bother talking to us.

*Snicker, snicker, snicker!!!*

31

On a more serious note, George Gilder has an excellent essay in the latest National Review (available online at NRO, but only to subscribers)about information theory and evolution. Of course I suppose Mummmmmy has no use for George Gilder either, which of course only enhances his stature.

32

Cheesehead:

Gilder is an embarassment by now; nobody in the technical community gives him any credence. Nobody.

Secondly, Gilder doesn't have a clue as to what evolutionary biology is or what information transfer is.

He's not here either... But I will have more on my blog that is related to the whole issue of ID that does come from this conference...

33

Gordon:

William Dembski simply is not an information theorist. Period. He has never published in any journal related to information theory. He has never considered any fundamental problems related to information theory.

Nobody who works in this field gives him any credence, not because we reject his authority but because he's never demonstrated any knowledge of information theory; he's never demonstrated any truly original research.

34

Cheesehead:

I don't know why your name wound up on my comment, but (July 12, 2006 01:51 PM) I apologize for the confusion...and I apologize for George Gilder making pronouncements...

M.

35

Onlookers:

Note the sad, ongoing pattern of drive-by well-poisoning attacks.

Note, too, that M has yet to respond to the fact-checking above, not to mention the point where he started -- attacking a person linked in a link in a short promo piece for a conference. Nor has he been able to sustain or simply link a solid refutation of the underlying issue triggered by his initial attack:

1} THE MAJOR POINT

Given that it is highly credible that Jesus was a real figure of history and that he claimed attributes of Deity, we face a three-point dilemma:

* he spoke the truth [LORD], or

* he did not.

* If not, he either knew and deceived others [LIAR]

* or else he was deluded to the point where he could think himself God when he was not [LUNATIC].

Since it is a consensus of responsible scholarship that he was "a good and wise teacher," those who wish to reject the first alternative have a major challenge -- and neither "he was a legend" nor "he was in effect a hindu guru" have any serious merits relative tot he facts. The classic Deist attempts to explain away the resurrection message proclaimed successfully in Jerusalem and around the Mediterranean then the wider world starting in the early 30's AD, have similarly failed.

In short, the Morison challenge stands, in the context of historical knowledge as inference to best explanation:

“now the peculiar thing . . . is that not only did [belief in Jesus’ resurrection as in part testified to by the empty tomb] spread to every member of the Party of Jesus of whom we have any trace, but they brought it to Jerusalem and carried it with inconceivable audacity into the most keenly intellectual centre of Judaea . . . and in the face of every impediment which a brilliant and highly organised camarilla could devise. And they won. Within twenty years the claim of these Galilean peasants had disrupted the Jewish Church and impressed itself upon every town on the Eastern littoral of the Mediterranean from Caesarea to Troas. In less than fifty years it had began to threaten the peace of the Roman Empire . . . . Why did it win? . . . . We have to account not only for the enthusiasm of its friends, but for the paralysis of its enemies and for the ever growing stream of new converts . . . When we remember what certain highly placed personages would almost certainly have given to have strangled this movement at its birth but could not – how one desperate expedient after another was adopted to silence the apostles, until that veritable bow of Ulysses, the Great Persecution, was tried and broke in pieces in their hands [the chief persecutor became the leading Missionary!] – we begin to realise that behind all these subterfuges and makeshifts there must have been a silent, unanswerable fact . . . “ [Who Moved the Stone, (Faber, 1971), pp. 114 – 115.]

2) Dr Dembski

As regards Dr Dembski, I excerpt briefly from his resume:

A mathematician and a philosopher . . . He has done postdoctoral work in mathematics at MIT, in physics at the University of Chicago, and in computer science at Princeton University. A graduate of the University of Illinois at Chicago where he earned a B.A. in psychology, an M.S. in statistics, and a Ph.D. in philosophy, he also received a doctorate in mathematics from the University of Chicago in 1988 and a master of divinity degree from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1996. He has held National Science Foundation graduate and postdoctoral fellowships . . . . Dr. Dembski has published articles in mathematics, philosophy, and theology journals and is the author/editor of more than ten books. In The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities (Cambridge University Press, 1998), he examines the design argument in a post-Darwinian context and analyzes the connections linking chance, probability, and intelligent causation. The sequel to The Design Inference appeared with Rowman & Littlefield in 2002 and critiques Darwinian and other naturalistic accounts of evolution. It is titled No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence.

I believe that both main qualifications adn apttern of publications are highly relevant to the seriousness of what he has put on the table, including in the peer-reviewed literature.

3) Inference to design

I note here that in a politically hyper-charged polarised and even hostile atmosphere, peer review is now a questionable criterion of soundness -- and in any case the real issue is the balance of merits on the facts and logic of the case.

On this point, the inference to design as the best explanation for functionally specified complex information, fundamentally, the issue at stake is not exactly a matter of subtleties at the cutting edge of technical information analysis.

For, as onlookers can see, ever since C1 BC Cicero [as excerpted above], it has been plain that complex, functional messages are credibly known to be reliable signs of an intelligent source. I have also showed that the same basic inference applies in a world in which noise can corrupt signals so there is no logically or physically solid barrier to every signal you have received over the Internet being "lucky noise." But we routinely apply an implicit filter based on just such FSCI to infer to design once a message has been received. The rejection of the same process when it does not fit the agenda is a case of selective hyperskepticism and gross inconsistency.

For, it so happens that life in particular manifests precisely such complex, functionally specified intelligence beyond reasonable reach of chance processes in the observed universe as we see in communication contexts. Thus, once we see that about life at molecular level, it invites inference to design as the source of the information.

Similarly, the finetuning of the physics of the cosmos invites an inference to design as its most credible explanation. But these quite plainly well-warranted [but obviously defeatable, providing good evidence to the contrary is brought forth] inferences cut across powerfully vested interests and agendas with power in major institutions, including educational and research ones.

4) BACK TO THE MAIN ISSUE

However, that is not the main point for this thread. The main point established is that --sadly -- M has plainly shown himself an unreliable source on facts, and one who habitually seeks to poison minds.

His refusal to take back and apologise for points where he has been exposed as going beyond the pale is even more sadly telling.

Sorry to have to be so direct.

+++++++++++++++

Grace, open our eyes and soften our hearts

Gordon

36

"he was a legend" nor "he was in effect a hindu guru" have any serious merits relative tot he facts.

Meaning, you've got your fingers in your ears and you don't believe them...which is exactly what I wrote above. You 've used your trick: you reject it because you lack faith.

"a good and wise teacher,"

does not exclude the possibility that Jesus was a liar. Indeed, one can find instances of his lying by omission in scripture: if Jesus knew he was going to rise from the dead (as scripture implies) why put everyone through all the nonsense and stress of the crucifixion in the first place? Given that Jesus was not forthright with his disciples about this, the evidence for dishonesty is overwhelming.

I suspect - though I'm not going to track it down, Turkel had problems with this line of thinking or one similar to it. And I know you'll spout tons of verbiage refuting none of it except to say you lack faith in my arguments. Oh ye of little faith!

Regarding Dembski:

He's no information theorist, and doesn't even play one on TV, although he claims to have played one in Ann Coulter's "book." Nobody practicing in the field gives him any attention whatsoever.

I'm off to the "Claude Shannon" lecture. They don't have a "William Dembski" lecture. It's a pity you want to shill for clowns like Dembski, but have no recognition of true geniuses like
Shannon.

Oh, his book on the No Free Lunch Theorem was refutted on the goodmath/badmath blog. It's embarassing that Dembski made a book-length mistake on that; I can't see how he could ever get a job in the field with what he's doing.

37

Mumon [and onlookers]:

I wish I did not have to observe that you are quick to put out talking points and unwarranted assertions, as has been shown already. Unfortunately, you continue to substantiate the same conclusion -- irresponsible intellectual conduct.

I note the below, mostly for the sake of onlookers, and in the prayer that one day, by God's grace you may wake up:

1] you've got your fingers in your ears and you don't believe . ..

--> No Mumon, I have simply pointed out that the quality of evidence that substantiates that the NT gives an historically accurate report of the existence, claims and teachings of Jesus is of sufficient force that it is only by applying a selectively higher level of skepticism that one is able to reject this historicity and the nature of the teachings and movement that flowed from them. [And, onlookers, note I have not here assumed that ONE miracle announced in the documents was real. I am only speaking to what was taught and what resulted from it: the church that spread across the Roman world starting in Jerusalem in the 30's AD. What is the best historical explanation of that – without begging worldview level questions?.]

--> When such selective hyperskepticism is resorted to insistently, it is then not just a matter of error. For. on matters of fact our academic culture accepts the general history of the C1 era on far less substantial evidence than the NT and corroborating documents and findings provide. So, the issue now becomes willful intellectual inconsistency.

--> the notion that Jesus was a crypto-hindu guru or the like fails the basic common-sense test. He was a Jew in a Jewish environment. That environment was shaped by the OT and the associated history and traditions, and was simply chalk-to-cheese relative to hinduism. Within that environment he led a messianic movement, a distinctively Jewish thing to do.

--> the issue is to explain how a movement teaching what is known and deriving from this specific teacher and claiming the particular miracles, especially the resurrection, was able to survive and thrive in such an environment in the teeth of official hostility, That is the Morison challenge and it has not been met – not least by M.

--> Onlookers: for more details I think a read of Kreeft's Handbook of Christian Apologetics provides a useful introductory discussion. [IMHCO, better than McDowell's.]

2] "a good and wise teacher," does not exclude the possibility that Jesus was a liar.

--> Now, let's see. Jesus – among a great many similar things -- taught that everything beyond "let your yes be yes and your no be no comes from evil." Further he came to fulfill a law that in its core summary, the decalogue, just happens to include the commandment against lying.

--> Your attempt to allege that he was a liar because he did not immediately and instantly tell the world everything about himself at once similarly fails. FYI, Jesus DID repeatedly predict to his disciples that he would be betrayed, killed and would rise again -- but it did not fit their preconceptions and so they did not understand it. THAT is what they testified to. Moreover, Isaiah 53, 700+ BC, predicts just such a suffering messiah who would make his soul and offering for sins, and would rise from the dead:

. . . he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray,each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all . . . . He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand. After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. [Isa 53:5 – 11]

--> Note how in Mt 8:17, an explicit appeal is made to the Is 53 passage's references to healing, and in Ac 8 Philip expounds it to the Ethiopian eunuch who asks for its explanation. THAT, too, is why I Cor 15, summarising in AD 55 the core gospel message ever since the 30s in Jerusalem, observes:

[This was] passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, . . . to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time . . . Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me [Paul] also, as to one abnormally born. [1 Cor 15:3 – 8]

--> I hardly need to underscore that AD 55 is well within eyewitness lifetime, and that Paul is here appealing to a commonly known point – and explicitly says most of the eyewitnesses were then still alive [this is a decade before the Jewish war and the Roman persecutions, i.e. ~ 20 – 25 years after the crucial events].

--> Onlookers should observe that no alternative has ever succeeded in coherently addressing the material facts, especially the Deist skeptical speculations. THAT is why there is a selectifely hyperskeptical dismissal of the historicity of Jesus or an attempt to suggest that he was some sort of pagan philospher – in the teeth of the most obvious evidence.

3] I suspect - though I'm not going to track it down, [JPH] had problems with this line of thinking or one similar to it.

--> First basic academic manners: to pretend or insinuate that the use of a pen name is dishonest -- which lurks in the deliberate insistence on using JPH's personal name -- is disrespectful and disregards a longstanding history of such names.

--> Second, onlookers should note that an assertion is made without substantiation, intending to poison the mind from sipping waters from the well in question. At best we are hearing one unsubstantiated side of a story, at worst we are seeing yet more academic slander. M should address the issue instead of attacking the man.

4] He's no information theorist . . . Nobody practicing in the field gives him any attention whatsoever . . . . his book on the No Free Lunch Theorem was refutted on the goodmath/badmath blog

--> Here we again see the attack to the man rather than the engagement of the issue. Onlookers, Dr Dembski is in fact a double PhD mathematician and philosopher who has raised significant issues that relate to information theory in general. As tot he alleged “refutation” we have seen more than enough in this ands other threads to know that M's dismissive claims are of little weight. I invite onlookers to note the new preface to the NFL book, five years after its hardback publication, as it comes out in paperback. You will see a mature apprevciation of responsible critique and a note o his onward respose and the state of the debate. Bottom line: the basic point still stands, and elaorating details have been developed to address legitimate points of concern. But we should not let the technical details of mathematical back-forth distract us from the fundamental issue.]

--> What is that issue? Simply this: Dr Dembski is pointing to a point made long ago by Cicero: when complex, functionally specified information occurs, it is a reliable sign of purposive intelligent agency at work – we know of zero exceptions to this where we do know the cause of the FSCI directly, and not just by inference; i.e we are looking a a regularity of the world. Moreover, and this is what Dembski has aptly discussed five years ago and since, there is no free lunch with information. For, the probabilities of such FSCI emerging at random -- the only other alternative generating engine for such a contingent result as opposed to a natural regularity -- in a cosmos on the scale of the observed universe is vanishingly small.

--> But also, intelligent agents do produce FSCI routinely all the time, as this thread of comments shows – all who are reading it are not treating this as a burst of lucky noise that just happens to make sense, whether in the brians of the partrivcipants or in the process of passing packets around the Internet, even though there is absolutely nothing in the physics or the logic of the situation to rule this out as incoherent – i.e. We are dealing with a reasonable inference based on the improbability of such lucky noise making sense in appropriate contexts. That is what I mean above when I have pointed out that we routinely infer to such agency int eh context of FSCI.

--> The attempt to a priori rule out such an inference when it would cut across evolutionary materialist philosophy is, in fact plain intellectual gerrymandering. And, that is what is entailed in M's dismissive remark and in the many attempted refutations that strain at gnats and swallow camels.

5] It's a pity you want to shill for clowns like Dembski, but have no recognition of true geniuses like Shannon.

--> EXCUSE ME! Not only is that a slanderous personal attack, it is an attempt at mind reading that grossly fails. I both studied and use Mr Shannon's work – as can be seen in my online note on this topic. [Cf the appendix for the discussion on the link from Shannon to statistical thermodynamics issues. Note that I give in outline and indicate the controversial nature of the debate on the point in physics, citing a specific reference work. I think the view has merit, in effect if yo do not know the microstate you have to treat the body in question as if it were behaving at random as constrained by the macro parameters you do know – thence, entropy as an energy relationship, s = k ln w. Again: there is no free lunch!]

--> let us see: Shill – OED: an accomplice of a hawker, gambler, or swindler who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others. Onlookers, kindly examine and contrast to this accusation, my note on the subject of the inference to design and its implications in light of the underlying concepts and context of information.

--> Onlookers should note the habitual resort to slander and personal attack, rather than addressing the issue. This is the strongest possible sign that the case M makes is bankrupt on the merits.

++++++++++++

Grace, open our eyes

GEM

38

Gordon:

I see you've exhibited more of your hyperselective skepticism, as well as your own projection.

39

Onlookers . . .

Sadly, Mumon -- and note onlookers, this is a pseudonym, not the real name of my interlocutor [sauce for the goose, anyone . . . ] -- runs true to form.

The fallacy in the last post just above is the more propagandistic stunt known as the turnabout accusation. The idea here is to accuse the other party of what you have been doing, in this case being selectivley hyperskeptical. [Observe how by contrast I have confined myself to emphasising issues rather than attacking the person. I have been forced to point out how often the ad hominem crops up in M's remarks, but that is because it is such a characteristic ploy of his.]

A look at the links I have given on selective hyperskepticism and on the inference to design -- and BTW, right in the introduction, there is a very favourable reference to one certain Claude Shannon of Bell Labs [so M has inadvertently revealed that he has not seriously read even the intro to this linked article] -- will suffice to show what is going on. In summary:

1] M wishes to selectively reject good evidence on the origins and growth of the C1 church [and note this is independent of whether the miracles in its claims were real]. The objective? To duck having to account for why, as JPH notes on, such an "impossible religion" succeeded.

2] M also wishes to duck the implications of the nature of the communicative situation, i.e. once a message has been received in a world full of noise, we are making an inference to signal, not noise, i.e. to design. When therefore we see FSCI in the molecular nanotechnology of life forms, and in the finetuning of the cosmos, it raises the same issue.

3] Lurking under both is the issue of worldview analysis. When worldview level issues are on he table we need to compare core belief-systems across factual adequacy, coherence and simplicity vs ad hocness.

++++++++

Grace, open our eyes

Gordon

40

Gordon: To give Mumon his due, just like the oyster doesn't create a pearl without the irritation of a grain of sand, you must admit that Mummmon has, by his very obtuseness, given you a wonderful opportunity to demonstrate the coherence and completeness of your thoughts on the matter. I sure have enjoyed reading what you have said.

41

CH:

Thanks. How is cheese farming these days – BTW did I ever tell you that el queso is one of my favourite foods? [And yes I know how paradoxical cheese is: one would not imagine that such a strange and even offensive process of frankly controlled rotting would yield such a wonderful result, unless one took the testimony and tasted and saw that it is good! Where have I heard something like that before . . . ]

Your oyster and grain of sand metaphor is indeed further food for thought.

I will go back to a point I noted above, as I think it tells us what is going on underneath the irresponsible rhetoric on M's part:

As to the "absurdity" of the Christian faith, my comment is that mystery is not to be confused with absurdity in the logical sense, much less clashing with one's particular presumptions and presuppositions -- as Paul warns of in 1 Cor 1 - 2. The Christian life begins, therefore, with metanoia: a profound, intellectually and morally tinged change of outlook and course of life, from being wise in one's eyes, to God's foolishness that in the end is wiser than men.

The passage I am thinking of reads:

I Cor 1:17 . . . Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel--not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

1CO 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:

"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."

1CO 1:20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength . . . .

27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things--and the things that are not--to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him. 30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God--that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31 Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord" . . . .

1CO 2:10 but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. 14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:

This is of course one of the biggest stumbling block passages in the Bible.

At first, it seems to be saying, the more absurd the more God. But in fact, it is warning us against boxing God in by imposing our worldly wisdom, worldviews an agendas on God. For, what seems absurd or offensive to us, God's apparent foolishness, is in fact wiser than man's wisdom.

The point is, that we cannot access the facts and truths of the Gospel starting from ourselves and our speculative systems of thought that underly our humanistic worldviews. Now, of course, here, we are not talking about the things in Rom 1 - 2, where we CAN intuit that there is a Creator behind the universe and a Moral Power behind the voice of conscience etc. But rather, we are saying that that the mystery of redemption cuts across our expectations, agendas and frankly our pride. We are saying, too, that it rests on surprising, brute facts of a particular time and place, accessible only through trusting the credible witnesses – who tell us things that cut clean across our expectations and desires. [but then should not that tell us that when we see a certain strangeness, in our face cutting across the way we like to neatly package the world, that this is one of the points where we may well be in contact with the raw face of reality . . . indeed, that is one of the counter-intuitive insights of modern physics: when it gets real strange but undeniably factual, that is when we are getting warm. Both Quantum and Relativity are like that, and BTW, each is well confirmed in its own sphere but how to fully reconcile both of them we know not – shades of the Shamrock Principle.. Well do I remember the difficulty I had in accepting them.]

But if we will submit tot he foolishness of listening to historical evidence that cuts across our expectations, and are willing to submit to what best explains the facts even though it is ever so strange, we will begin to see the true wisdom in it, a wisdom that goes far above and beyond our own all too fallible brilliance. And, of course, the implication is that the stories we make up to explain the world and dismiss the message of redemption, persuasive though they may well be to us, are riddled with fallacies.

M, sadly -- but then, perhaps by God's grace for the good of himself and others in the end [let us pray for that precious gift of repentance] -- is a case in point.

Thanks again

Gordon

42

Onlookers:

As a PS, I wish to attach some excerpts on the challenges faced by the now obsolete - but still often resorted to -- Deist theories that tried to brush aside the resurrection of Jesus. I judge that those serious about the issues of the inference to design as the best explanation for the FSCI in life at molecular level and for the finetuned cosmos are able to link to this page and the onward links for themselves.

The following are more or less similar to what McDowell presented in his ETDAV since the 1970's, but of course in far less detail and without the comments by scholars on the matter. I also strongly recommend a reading of Kreeft and Tacelli's Handbook of Christian Apologetics – a work by two Roman Catholic Scholars.

Note the basic point, that on the part of the skeptics we are in the main dealing with wordview-level question-begging by selective hyperskepticism:

Many people have denied that Jesus' tomb was found empty on the third day after His death, but their reasons have generally been theological or philosophical. It's extremely difficult to argue against the empty tomb on the basis of historical evidence . . . .

[Why the empty tomb is central:] If Jesus' body had still been in the tomb, it would have been pretty easy for the opponents of Christianity to discredit the resurrection. They could have simply produced the corpse, paraded it around town, and put an end to any further speculation. Why didn't they do it? Because the body wasn't there . . . .

[He was not buried in a known tomb:] Some [recent dritics] may suggest that the body of Jesus was never buried in a recognizable tomb, and that the opponents of Christianity simply were unable to locate the corpse when Jesus' disciples began talking about the resurrection. However, the earliest historical accounts maintain that He was placed in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, a wealthy member of the Sanhedrin. There is no reason to question the credibility of this testimony, which is very ancient and contains a number of specific details . . . . Jesus was buried in a known tomb [just outside the main northern gate of Jerusalem], but the tomb was empty the third day. This is a fact that even the [early] opponents of Christianity recognized, and it's one that Christians can appeal to in their arguments for the gospel (Acts 26:26 [,cf. Matt 28:11 - 13, note that the guards would here have to know what happened when they were sleeping -- for which they would be liable to death. That is, the paid-for story is a classic well-poisoning accusation]) . . . .

[Why did the disciples believe the tomb was empty?:] Jesus' followers clearly believed His tomb was empty, for they were persecuted from the very beginning for their testimony to that effect. That doesn't prove that what they said was true, but it does strongly suggest that they believed what they said. People have died for lies, but only because they believed them.

What would make the followers of Jesus believe that His tomb was empty? Their own writings state that they believed it because they went to see the tomb and found that His body was no longer there. They did what you and I would do. They checked it out, and it was empty . . . .

If the disciples had stolen the body, they obviously would have known that the resurrection had not really taken place. The fact that these men suffered in life and were then killed for their faith in the resurrection strongly suggests that they believed it really happened. They did not give their lives for what they knew was a lie. The disciples did not steal the body of Jesus . . . .

[Were they hallucinating/ having "visions"?:] Some have suggested that the disciples really did believe in the resurrection, but that they were deceived by hallucinations or religious hysteria. This would be possible if only one or two persons were involved, but He was seen alive after His death by groups of people who touched Him, ate with Him, and conversed with Him. Even more to the point, the tomb really was empty! If the disciples didn't steal it, even if they did only imagine that they had seen it, what happened to the body of Jesus? . . . .

[Maybe the authorities took the body?:] If the Jewish leaders had taken the body of Jesus, they would have certainly produced it in order to refute the idea that He had been raised from the dead. [BTW, in the Gospel accounts, the first supposition of the women who found the empty tomb was that the authorities had taken the body. The disciples, on hearing of the missing body and/or visions of angels from the women, resorted to dismissive prejudice: hysterical women. Why did they revise their first suppositions and/or skepticisms?] They never did that, because they didn't have the body . . . .

[Maybe he swooned or something like it?:] some have suggested that Jesus did not really die, that He only appeared to be dead, was revived, and then appeared to the disciples. This makes a mockery out of the sufferings of the cross, suggesting that a beaten and crucified man [NB: with a spear thrust into the vitals to make sure, resulting in a flowing out of separated blood -- a sign of death that C1 reporters would not have understood] could force his way out of a guarded tomb. At the same time, it portrays Jesus as the sort of person who would willingly deceive his disciples, carrying off the greatest hoax of all time. That the disciples would believe Him to be resurrected in triumph over death would be even more surprising if He was in fact on the edge of death after a severe beating.

[A more credible alternative:]Jesus was truly killed, He was actually buried, and yet His grave was empty. Why? . . . .

The followers of Jesus said that the tomb was empty because Jesus had been raised from the dead, and many people claimed to have seen Him after the resurrection. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul identifies a number of individuals who witnessed the resurrected Christ, noting also that Christ had appeared to over five hundred persons at one time (v. 6). He tells his readers that most of those people were still alive, essentially challenging them to check out the story with those who claimed to be eyewitnesses. The presence of such eyewitnesses prevented Paul and others from turning history into legend.

Alternative explanations are inadequate, and eyewitnesses were put to death because they continued to maintain that Jesus had been raised from the dead. Christianity exists because these people truly believed in the resurrection, and their testimony continues to be the most reasonable explanation for the empty tomb of Jesus Christ.

In short, would be skeptics have yet to account for the origin, survival and success of an "impossible faith."

++++++++

Grace, open our eyes

Gordon

43

just checking . . .