Apologetics and Cognitive Dysfunction- The Chicken or the Egg

This one might take a while. Wait for it.

TWIM/RvA Dialogues- A Resounding Success!

I began this series with several goals in mind. I will outline them, in no particular order of importance-

1- As I alluded to in the introduction to these debates, the ‘rules of engagement’, cl represents the school of modern Christian apologetics more than adequately, in my view. That being the case, I’m very interested in deconstructing his arguments; since, after all, the title of my blog is ‘Reason vs. Apologetics...an ADVERSARIAL Relationship.’ This is a fight for truth, folks, plain and simple. I think cl might agree with me here. However, cl’s style is to start and maintain ‘flame wars’ within the comment threads whenever possible. I’m sure he would DISagree here, but that’s not the way I see it. Nevertheless, his posts by-and-large reflect a mindset regarding certain philosophical issues that I feel like addressing here on my little blog. I decided to implement my new format-my critique to one of cl’s post, followed by an unchallenged rebuttal by cl- in hopes of zeroing in on the actual points of discussion, rather than letting the conversation be waylaid by cl’s pedantic antics (for those unaware of how cl tends to operate, check out the numerous threads he invades and sidetracks). I believed that by limiting his ability to constantly readdress and reiterate over and over and bloody over, again and again, playing all sorts of nefarious games along the way, we might actually have some fruitful discussions that wouldn’t devolve into...well, whatever you’d call the mess things become whenever cl is present. I call it horseshit, pure and simple.

2- I thought this new format also presented both of us with a writing challenge different from the blogging norm. Speaking for myself, I was forced to better consider possible loopholes in my arguments, since I only have one shot to make my presentation, for better or worse. I even yielded the debating advantage to my opponent, in offering him the unanswered last word. This isn’t the way things are generally done, I know; but on the other hand, I have much better material to work with. You know...reality? And if he caught me here or there in a bad argument or presentation, so much the better! Live and learn.

3- From a more mischievous standpoint, I wanted to shut cl down according to his own standards of clarity and non-ad hominem affectation, which I’ll admit I engage in from time to time just for fun. Not that my arguments are formally tainted by ad-hominem, since the personal stuff is just icing on the cake for me. But I’m not so sure cl actually knows the difference, especially since he engages in the stuff all the time while pretending not to(thus his 'affectation', or pose of being reasonable). Did I say pretend? That might not be altogether fair, since I’ve come to the conclusion that cl suffers from a real cognitive disconnect. Honestly, he can’t follow an argument worth shit sometimes! I’m not sure if the cognitive problems feed into his fairly severe personality disorder, or if it’s the other way ‘round. Either way, I seem to have accomplished this particular goal somewhat strikingly, as can be witnessed in the post previous to this one. Read his reply carefully, with the format rules in mind, and I think you’ll see what I mean.

4- From the actual presentation standpoint, I thought this format offered the reader a much superior ratio of substance-to-noise than exists in the general threads, especially when cl’s around. You read the argument, my critique, and cl’s reply. Period. What could be simpler? Naturally, I knew cl would be averse to these rules, and that it would take some cajoling to get him to play along, including the already mentioned offer of last word. cl likes a crowd. He likes to play commenters off one another through nitpicking statements apart, and also seeks allies wherever he can get them. He seems to feel more at home in a circus, and the more raucousness, the better- all the brouhaha tends to camouflage the paucity of his arguments somewhat, as people take their eyes off the prize and get swept up in the flaming and side-issues. It’s happened to me many times.

Anyway, I think all my targets have been reached, and I’m feeling...satisfied. Not joyous, because even though I knew in my heart of hearts just how this would end doesn’t make me feel better in being right. Not too much, anyway :) I truly would have liked to see cl man-up to the challenge. However, he failed...and quite predictably. Naturally, in cl’s mind this is just more confirmation that I’m a ‘hater’ (his word, and in contrast to a ‘non-hater’ who celebrates in fantasies of rape, murder, and incestual relationships *see Gideon*), but I can do nothing to change his mind on that count. He is what he is, and most of the readers of this blog know what he is- a hypocrite, a liar, a sockpuppet, a troll, and a piss-poor thinker at best. Nothing new here, I suppose. And I truly, truly wish it would have gone differently vis-a-vis these dialogues.

However, I intend to continue critiquing his posts whenever he writes something suitably convoluted or otherwise off the charts of reasonableness, and he’ll still be allowed to offer a rebuttal if and when he feels like it (Offer withdrawn. See UPDATE). For one thing, since I’m the one doing the critiquing, I think it only fair to offer him a response. Beyond that, exposure to bad apologetics (and they’re ALL bad, aren’t they?) can’t be a bad thing for folks who like to think along these lines. It’s good mental exercise, and a hoot-and-a-half besides...ain’t it?

UPDATE:

The TWIM/RvA dialogues are suspended, and probably for good, in that I'll probably change them to monologues. My change in attitude since I wrote the above comes from my absolute disdain for cl's lack of integrity. His dishonesty just runs too deep, as seen here (see comments). It's an emotional decision, I'll admit. Not being a pathological liar, I often tend to grant the benefit of the doubt to people who don't deserve it. This policy usually winds up biting me in the ass :); especially since I then feel it's my ethical duty to expose the liar for what he really is (plus, it pisses me off to no end!) An exercise in futility, I suppose. In fact, I'm almost sure of it! LOLOL! Who the hell else cares about liars on the internet, anyway? That's what the internet's for, right? Right???

However, dishonesty exposed is also valuable, I think. I shall continue to deconstruct his poor and reprehensibly deceitful argumentation as time and interest allow, because that's a GOOD thing! (isn't it? maybe so, maybe not. either way, knowing myself as I do, I probably will). Doubtful any minds will be changed, but truth for truth's sake is enough for me. Hm, 'truth for truth's sake'...not bad. I wonder if it's already been claimed.

Just call me Don Quixote! Onward!

BTW, here's a sample of cl's latest dissembling, from the link I provided just above. It's particularly amusing, and is a good example of why he gets censored and/or kicked off so many blogs. People can usually take only so much bad faith before they act. Here's the pertinent part of cl's email to me...

"although i started with an attempt, literally, i see no use in responding to this one, there's simply TOO MUCH DIRT to throw off. i'll never be able to recover from those assumptions to whoever's reading your blog. they'll probably just take the fact that you're a good writer as grounds to believe whatever you say about another dumb believer. and there's no comments, so nobody can even challenge it."

In light of this obvious decline to respond to my post, I decided to go ahead and post our entire email exchange to expose cl's motivations...

i'm just gonna be as real as possibly here - your third installment of the series sucks ass jim. you really disappointed me in your continued assumptions and false associations. i gave you a bit of clarification (which, by the way has been on my site for months if you would but seek), and you use it to run ten miles and associate me with everything from calvinism to arminianism to total depravity doctrine.

although i started with an attempt, literally, i see no use in responding to this one, there's simply TOO MUCH DIRT to throw off. i'll never be able to recover from those assumptions to whoever's reading your blog. they'll probably just take the fact that you're a good writer as grounds to believe whatever you say about another dumb believer. and there's no comments, so nobody can even challenge it.

would it be good faith if i construed your atheism as entailing "baby eating" or "lacking moral values?" hell no it wouldn't. you got some real nerve sometimes man.



Since this isn't an official response, but the last in a series of email bitching, I will include my response to cl here, as follows-


cl:

The more you write things like this, the more I'm persuaded that all you really seek is contention. I've addressed your argument from my POV, with absolutely no ad hominem inferences whatsoever. Obviously I knew you'd disagree, since mine is a critique of your position. That's why I've offered you the last word rebuttal, to...uh...you know...REBUT! Clarify. Add. Subtract. Anything you like, free and clear. I didn't say anything analogous to 'baby eating' or 'lacking moral values'.

Dirt? Why, because I brought up the two ends of the spectrum, Arminianism and Calvinism, regarding pre-destination? You'll 'never be able to recover' because I'm a 'good writer'??? No comments? YOU can comment, cl. Unchallenged. That's the whole point of this format, for crissakes!

Here's the real problem, as I see it. You just don't have the stuff, cl. Oh, you bluster and point fingers about how nobody's being cogent 'cept for poor little ol' you, but in the end, all you've really got is a knack for flame wars. I figured this format would bug you in the end, because it takes you out of your comfort zone, where you can mitigate, seek allies, and rile everybody up to your heart's content. On the other hand, I had hopes that you might find value in rising above all that. But you can't do it, can you? This is what you like, arguing towards no purpose. Even during our simple correspondence to set this thing up with you, you've tried to get me going on more than one occasion, but I just wouldn't bite. And now this response. You're nothing but a big baby, cl.

Put up or shut up, ya wuss.

P.S. Since you've decided to not participate here, I guess I'll use this interchange in lieu of an actual response by you. Suck THAT ass, you internet miscreant. Grow some.

Note the mean-spirited reaction (sucks ass) and absolute paranoia regarding a post that simply addressed the issues of his article, but which he seems to have interpreted as a personal attack (don't let him kid you, it's ALWAYS personal with cl.) Admittedly, I reacted in kind. That's what I tend to do, especially with bullshitters like cl.

Now, of course, he's putting the usual TWIM spin on things, reaching its nexus with this statement from his blog...

"I said, "Although I started with an attempt, literally, I see no use in responding to this one." You (addressing me) interpreted that to mean, "there would NOT be a response forthcoming."

In other words, when cl said

"Although I started with an attempt, literally, I see no use in responding to this one."

what he really meant by that was

"I've already drafted a response, and I WILL be responding to this one."

LOL! Oh, and then there's this...

Moreover, re-read my comment. Not only does it state that a response was already drafted at the time of the email, IN NO MANNER did I "state quite clearly that there would NOT be a response forthcoming." I simply shared my lack of motivation in responding.

So, let's get this straight. Using cl-speak, "I started with an attempt..." translates to "a response was already drafted." And "I see no use in responding to this one" REALLY means "A response is forthcoming."

I wonder what color the sky is in cl's world. Wouldn't do much good to ask him about it, I suppose. He'd just lie.

NOTE: The reason I feel it was necessary to go into this much detail (and perhaps more will follow, depending on my mood) is because cl operates by throwing so much shit into the fan, that some people who aren't paying attention forget which direction it's coming from. Most folks lose interest in conversations such as these pretty easily. Frankly, I can't say I blame them. Then again, nobody's being forced to read this :) From my angle, I see this kind of stuff as just an extension of apologetics in general. Convolute. Obfuscate. Re-direct. Lie. Blame others. And never, ever say you're sorry. And so, I choose to confront this shit from time to time, and if it takes a little time, and bores some people *shrug*. Go watch 'I Love Lucy' :) And for those who would lump me in with people like cl, simply because I match verbosity for verbosity, I'll sign off with a little adage I picked up from who knows where...

When you have one guy pushing old ladies in front of speeding trains, and another guy pushing old ladies out of the way of speeding trains, what you DON'T have are two guys who just like to push old ladies around.

fini (for now)

TWIM/RvA Dialogue...Belief

TWIM LINK

RULES OF ENGAGEMENT

Belief- an interesting word, and one that seems to mean different things to different people in the context of religous faith and practices. To some, belief is merely the acknowledgement of a provisional truth as perceived by a subject. To others, it encompasses more; a fidelity regarding attached dogmas, as well as trust in ancillary codexes such as the gospels and epistles of the bible. To still others, belief represents not so much these things (though they’re not necessarily excluded), as what advocates refer to as a ‘spiritual regeneration’, a metaphysical re-birth of the so-called ‘spirit’, a change of being which somehow aligns a person with the will- nay, the very being of God (whatever that means, since at this point we’ve left the world of ideas and have entered the field of so-called ‘experiential truths’, realities poorly represented by things such as logical concepts). This, I think, is the spirit of cl’s latest essay, that there are relational issues between God and mankind which can’t even be addressed through standard reasoning processes, much less resolved.

First of all, I think cl is to be commended for clarifying his stance vis-a-vis his religious belief system in this way. It’s not that he’s said anything particularly new or surprising here, but his straightforward exposition should do much to answer his detractors, who have found him to be generally evasive in his argumentation concerning these matters. It certainly makes discourse easier when you’re clear as to where your opponent stands. Perhaps the frustration level will diminish a bit, and some slightly more fruitful dialogue will ensue. Naturally, time will tell in this regard., but I’m tentatively hopeful. At least the cards are on the table. On to the critique.

cl begins by offering a general definition for belief...

-when I say belief, I refer specifically to the belief that God exists as described in the Bible.

Unfortunately, the rest of his article adopts an altogether different definition of belief, where belief becomes synonymous with the ‘spiritual regeneration’ I spoke of earlier. The deviation from his original definition begins immediately, in the very next sentence where he defines the word ‘believer’...

When I say believer or saint, I refer specifically to those who have believed and known God, and henceforth accepted the provision of the Gospel: Jesus Christ.

While the addendum ‘and known’ is a bit obscure to interpret with much certitude, the rest of the sentence makes it very clear that we’re no longer talking about the acceptance as fact that the biblical God exists. We’ve now left the realm of possible factoids, and have attached a proviso stipulating a WILLFUL acceptance of God on His terms, which is far different than the simple acknowledgement of a fact. It’s a bending of the knee, if you will; the subservience of one’s desires, goals, what have you, to the will of a greater power. At least, to some extent. But, wait! The definition changes again. Or, if it isn’t exactly a change, it’s at least a bit more complicated...

The biblical definition of a believer is one whose spirit has been regenerated by God.

In other words, we’ve gone from mere intellectual acknowledgment, to an acceptance via will of the ‘provisions of the Gospel: Jesus Christ’, to some sort of supernatural transformation of the very being of man, which seems to stray about as far from the commonly accepted meaning of the word ‘belief’ as one can get. That generally accepted meaning, of course, is embodied in the first definition of belief that cl offers i.e. intellectual acknowledgment of what the subject provisionally perceives to be factual.

Where to begin, where to begin? I fear this is going to be a very long rebuttal.

Ok, let’s get the ball rolling with some labeling shortcuts regarding the differing sorts of ‘belief’, shall we?

B1- God exists.
B2- I surrender my will to the will of God.
B3- God has regenerated my spirit.

First note that these definitions aren’t necessarily exclusive. For instance, B2 seems to logically require B1, though B1 doesn’t require B2 or B3 (the devils also believe, and tremble). B3, however, apparently doesn’t require B1 or B2; at least, not in its implementation by God, though one might argue that B1 and B2 follow along as a matter of course shortly after the implementation of B3. Or, perhaps B1 and B2 are wrapped up inside B3, in such a way that they all arrive together within the vehicle of B3. However, I’m still having a problem with defining B3 as belief. Perhaps I can draw a little analogy using an apple tree...

AT1- There’s an apple tree in my backyard (it may have wandered off since last I saw it, but I have ‘faith’ that it’s still there).
AT2- I surrender my life to the will of the apple tree, and will henceforth no longer pick its juicy, delicious apples.
AT3- The apple tree fell on me.

Now, certainly AT3 carries with it the truth of AT1, a truth that resonates through my mind with every painful scream, and cannot reasonably be denied. I’m not so sure about AT2, depending on the emphasis. If I am truly self-willed, the best I can do is either rebel against the indignity the apple tree has forced upon me, or acquiesce to the superior mass of the tree. However, is the fact that the apple tree fell on me truly an aspect of belief on my part, one way or the other? I would say no. Certainly, the apple tree has reshaped my spine to better fit the curve and knotholes of its own trunk, but what has this to do with any perception, willful or otherwise? At the end of the day, I’m left lying maimed underneath an apple tree, and any questions as to my beliefs at the time seem inconsequential. Nevertheless, that all said we’ll go ahead and explore the rest of the TWIM essay employing markers B1, B2 and B3, and see where we end up, okee dokee?

First off, I suppose I should point out that what we’re talking about here is the requirement for salvation of the Christian sort. You know, reunited with God, going to heaven to live in bliss for all eternity, avoiding all that hellfire and brimstone stuff. A heavy subject, to be sure!

Next, I’d like to point out that cl, after his opening definitions, pretty much discards B1 and B2, opting almost exclusively for B3; which, as I’ve pointed out, really isn’t belief at all. What follows are excerpts where cl stresses ultimate supremacy of B3-type efficacy...

Does this mean that any person who utters with their mouth "I believe" is regenerated thusly? Certainly not.

The difference between being a member of the church and simply attending church is precisely this matter of regeneration. Again, belief refers to something that actually happens to the subject in the spiritual realm. Anything less than this is a mere puffing up of the religious mind.

... I would like to make it clear that belief cannot be effected by reason, intellect or religion. The reason simply stated is that only God can regenerate a dead spirit. Only God can enable our belief (John 6:65)

Here's the catch: belief is purported to be a spiritual phenomenon that flows from God to the believer. This means that no amount of anything we initiate can effect belief.

- atheists and skeptics naturally assume belief is also best apprehended via one's own intellect and reason. Woe to us believers who also mistakenly believe thusly!

nothing a person can initiate can ever restore themselves or another to a right relationship with God. No amount of science or evidence or philosophy or argumentation can suffice, and every fruitless intellectual discussion with an atheist belabors this point. In the same vein, every religion is revealed to be mere vainglory: no amount of dogma or sacraments or confessions or services can regenerate a spirit that is dead unto God.

People shall never enter the kingdom of God through our encouragement, persuasion, argument, inducement, excitement, or attraction; entrance can be gained only by new birth, by nothing less than the resurrection of the spirit.
-Ibid.

We might be tempted to say, "That's not so, after all, I came to believe because of such-and-such evidence or so-and-so's argument." If that's the case, our spirits may not have ever been regenerated at all. If you fancy yourself a believer, do you feel an emptiness despite that fact?

... because only God can enable belief, and that by nothing less than a spiritual act...

They may end up believing in the supernatural - but this does not make them believers or saints - hence belief in the supernatural remains as useless as anything else that's not God's regeneration.

Now, one might insist at this point that I’m missing the obvious, that the natural progression is B1 through B2 culminating in B3 i.e. a person comes to believe that God is a fact, acquiesces to the will of God, and is subsequently ‘regenerated’. This is the way I think most Christians see things, and is indeed the basis of the sinners prayer. “Dear Lord, I accept that You are who You say You are in the bible, I renounce my sinful ways and vow to follow You, and ask you into my life.” However, cl seems to disagree with this salvation formula when he says...

We might be tempted to say, "That's not so, after all, I came to believe because of such-and-such evidence or so-and-so's argument." If that's the case, our spirits may not have ever been regenerated at all.

And now we get into the real convoluted mess which is Christian salvation doctrine, my friends. I’m afraid a thorough examination of this subject would take far more energy than I’m willing to invest in this blog post, requiring a philosophical sojourn from Arminianism, through the several different degrees of and takes on Calvinism, whilst stopping at interesting points in between. Suffice it to say that everything hinges on where one eventually settles regarding the free will to pre-destination ratio.

For the hard determinists, spiritual regeneration is wholly in the hands of God Almighty, including any and all means towards that end. Why? Because when Adam and Eve fell from God’s grace in the Garden of Eden, they and all of their progeny down through the succeeding generations until now became ‘spiritually dead’ creatures, thus de facto ‘enemies of God’. This is the doctrine of total depravity, which basically states that there’s nothing left good in us which would even begin to budge us in God’s direction. Hence, God is forced to do all the work. How does He choose who is to be saved then, since it’s all up to Him? None of our business! He does what He does for His own reasons, and that’s that. From this point of view, B3 is the only substantive thing happening, while B1 and B2 simply tag along for the ride. This is the view that the TWIM article seems to be espousing. Why, then, does cl end his piece with this?

If it is true that belief cannot be effected by our reason, intellect, science, religion, evidence or rational abilities, the onus is on the skeptic to either humbly ask God to help them accept this limitation, or risk perishing in their stubbornness.

But, cl! We are born in stubbornness, and in fact there’s nothing an un-regenerated soul can do BUT be stubborn. If we can’t be moved towards God by ‘reason, intellect, science, religion, evidence or rational abilities’, and if our wills are twisted according to our unregenerate nature, how can you possibly ask us to ‘humble ourselves’? And to whom, since your whole argument here hinges on the idea that belief=spiritual generation, which is totally out of our hands? You’re asking us to build a boat when all the materials are on the other side of the lake!

There are other problems with this argument. For one thing, the whole ‘B1 and B2 emerge from the implementation of B3’ thing seems to grossly contradict the whole idea about the need to spread the gospel through preaching and teaching. Conversion itself seems predicated on getting people onboard B1 and B2, so that B3 might occur, which seems to be the exact opposite of cl’s message. Advocates of cl’s position usually respond with something like this- “It’s true that God is the actual agent of change here. However, spreading the Word through preaching and teaching is the vehicle by which God manifests His regenerative powers upon whomsoever He sees fit to bestow them upon.” What this boils down to is that God gives grace according to His B3(B1+B2) formula, but for some mysterious purpose (He IS so all-fucking mysterious, isn’t He?), he prefers to make it look like He’s using the B1->B2->B3 formula. Sort of like how He seems to have gone out of His way to make the universe appear billions of years old, when it’s actually only a few thousand years old. Man, that Jehovah really likes fucking with the minds of the peasantry, huh?

There are a few other little snippets I’d like to address in closing, just for fun. In response to many atheists' belief that God’s actions make no sense, cl replies...

Do children set terms for their parents?

Not usually, although the relationship changes as children grow and learn. Also, good parents try to make sense to their children, and don’t act arbitrarily just because they have the power to do so. And obviously, the eventual goal of parenthood to to launch children into the world as mature, informed adults. At some point, the factor of parental authority is SUPPOSED to be usurped in favor of the grown childrens’ autonomy. This reality does NOT reflect God’s parental status, nor His childrens’ ultimate subservience throughou eternity.

This is why Jesus often rebuked those who demanded miraculous signs: they're a cheap form of flattery easily employable by any supernatural agent who's gained a foothold.

And yet Jesus turned water into wine at a party. Who was up next? Kreskin?

We must rely on faith to interpret all supernatural experiences.

Back in the day, when I had more curiosity about UFO’s than I do now, I had a conversation with a temporary co-worker about the subject. I told him I wasn’t really sure about what to think of them, and that I’d probably have to see one myself to believe. He told me that he actually knew a woman who was in constant communication with them; that they often appeared to her out in the desert. I replied that I’d really like to see something like that, to which he answered, “Of course, if you don’t believe you won’t be able to see them.” This experience of mine says a lot, I think, about miracle sightings of all kinds. We have a long way to go as a species regarding critical thinking.

I could write a whole lot more on this subject, but the post has already gotten too long, and I think I’ve addressed the high points adequately. Basically, I find the whole salvation doctrine(s) highly incoherent, and in particular this regeration=belief thing flies in the face of a lot of Christian doctrine, including the Great Commission. Calvinists have jumped through lots of hoops in order to justify their take on things, but that’s what apologists do, after all...try to reconcile the irreconcilable. The problem is, the bible and Christian belief at large are a hodgepodge of conflicting statements and ideas, and no matter which denominational bed you choose to lie down in, you’re gonna wake up with wrinkle marks all over your back.

NOTE: I thought I’d go ahead and include some remarks made by cl in the comments thread of his article, reflecting his ostensible denial that his argument embraces a hard pre-destination doctrine-

“In fact, every single conversion requires active participation on behalf of the subject.”

“Human beings can either obey or violate commands.”

I'm saying the Bible teaches that, although nothing from ourselves can save ourselves, and the entire thing can only happen by the power of God, we still have a say in the matter: we have to accept what God has enabled. God doesn't just clobber non-believers over the head one day and turn them into believers against their free will...

Romans 10:13 is true, we do in fact have a say in the matter. God enables, we accept.

The problem is that these opinions seem to fly in the face of all the other opinions in the article, personal and otherwise, which can be summed up in the assertion “ Only God can enable our belief .” Now, it may be possible that B1 can be accomplished without God’s intervention. However, it’s been painstakingly pointed out that B1, mere belief in God as a fact amongst other facts, is useless in effecting salvation. Furthermore, there’s the question as to whether a person can actually believe in the factual God without the Indwelling Presence to delineate true ideas about God from false ones. And since everybody’s ideas about God are at least a little different, where’s the dividing line between acceptable and non-acceptable error? And how does one know when it’s been crossed? B2 holds more promise, but there’s still the problem of why an unregenerate soul would humble itself to God, thus becoming regenerated, when it seems to require a regenerate soul to have the capability of sincerely turning to God in the first place. Well, either that, or a complete usurpation of a person’s will by God’s Will. IOW, we’re back to the ‘total depravity’ question again.

No matter how one slices this stuff, it’s hard to deny at least a degree of convolution, especially when one considers the internecine war that’s been waged for centuries within the ‘One True Church’. As far as TWIM’s article is concerned, it seems mostly aimed at minimizing-indeed, abolishing- the evidential side of the question in favor of supernatural powers effected from another realm immune to enquiry, or criticism. At best, we can humbly accept a mystery that doesn’t make any sense to some of us, with the Pascalian hope that by abandoning what seems most reasonable we might escape the eternal hellfires of a jealous deity. At worst, it’s completely out of our hands, and our fates were sealed before we were even born. I tend to side with the harder of the pre-destinationists in these matters, if only because their exegetical inclinations seem to line up flawlessly with the precursor to this divine soteriological escapade i.e. ‘the Fall’. After all, if we can be held morally accountable for having a nature foisted upon us by the original sinners themselves, Adam and Eve, then I suppose anything goes, including arbitrary Captain’s rules as to who gets to man the lifeboats, and who gets stuck going down with the ship (rules transmitted on a really narrow frequency, on a really crappy radio by the Captain; who, of course, isn’t actually on the ship, but is transmitting from his really swank penthouse office suite on shore, who nevertheless assures us that He is with us and truly, TRULY cares about us.).

IN LIEU OF AN OFFICIAL TWIM RESPONSE, THIS:

Wow, three posts in, and already TWIM's host has caved in to his old habits. I've done my best to keep these critiques impersonal and to the point, the very thing cl constantly accuses others of not doing, and here's the fruit of my efforts-

i'm just gonna be as real as possibly here - your third installment of the series sucks ass jim. you really disappointed me in your continued assumptions and false associations. i gave you a bit of clarification (which, by the way has been on my site for months if you would but seek), and you use it to run ten miles and associate me with everything from calvinism to arminianism to total depravity doctrine.

although i started with an attempt, literally, i see no use in responding to this one, there's simply TOO MUCH DIRT to throw off. i'll never be able to recover from those assumptions to whoever's reading your blog. they'll probably just take the fact that you're a good writer as grounds to believe whatever you say about another dumb believer. and there's no comments, so nobody can even challenge it.

would it be good faith if i construed your atheism as entailing "baby eating" or "lacking moral values?" hell no it wouldn't. you got some real nerve sometimes man.

Since this isn't an official response, but the last in a series of email bitching, I will include my response to cl here, as follows-

cl:

The more you write things like this, the more I'm persuaded that all you really seek is contention. I've addressed your argument from my POV, with absolutely no ad hominem inferences whatsoever. Obviously I knew you'd disagree, since mine is a critique of your position. That's why I've offered you the last word rebuttal, to...uh...you know...REBUT! Clarify. Add. Subtract. Anything you like, free and clear. I didn't say anything analogous to 'baby eating' or 'lacking moral values'.

Dirt? Why, because I brought up the two ends of the spectrum, Arminianism and Calvinism, regarding pre-destination? You'll 'never be able to recover' because I'm a 'good writer'??? No comments? YOU can comment, cl. Unchallenged. That's the whole point of this format, for crissakes!

Here's the real problem, as I see it. You just don't have the stuff, cl. Oh, you bluster and point fingers about how nobody's being cogent 'cept for poor little ol' you, but in the end, all you've really got is a knack for flame wars. I figured this format would bug you in the end, because it takes you out of your comfort zone, where you can mitigate, seek allies, and rile everybody up to your heart's content. On the other hand, I had hopes that you might find value in rising above all that. But you can't do it, can you? This is what you like, arguing towards no purpose. Even during our simple correspondence to set this thing up with you, you've tried to get me going on more than one occasion, but I just wouldn't bite. And now this response. You're nothing but a big baby, cl.

Put up or shut up, ya wuss.

P.S. Since you've decided to not participate here, I guess I'll use this interchange in lieu of an actual response by you. Suck THAT ass, you internet miscreant. Grow some.

cl is still welcome to add his last word to future critiques. However, this kind of whining, crybaby shit is something up with which I shall not put! Dry your eyes, cl, put your pacifier back in, and try to write something in the non-martyr style, will you please? Otherwise, don't bother. I will continue to critique your arguments as I see fit, and if and when you get over your diaper rash, you are free to respond with grown up words and sentences.

Oh, and don't try to continue with this. You'll only make yourself look worse.

TWIM/RvA Dialogue Response

Morons of a Feather...

This guy makes it so easy!

This is a followup to something I posted a while ago, regarding Ben Stein’s notorious ‘exposé’ (pardon me...LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL), ‘Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed’. Now, right off the bat, if you’ve seen this film and aren’t blown out of your undergarments by the absolutely hilarious irony of the title (and, it gets better), you’re either comatose, or have a personality disorder rendering you impervious to situational humor (there’s somebody around here like that...hmmmmmm).

I’m not sure if I’ve ever mentioned it here before, but I expose myself to very little ‘news’ these days, television, print or otherwise; other than what I run across by accident, that is. Things used to be different. I once was what is commonly known as a ‘news junkie’. I read several newspapers cover to cover, plus all the major weekly mags, PLUS I was hooked into radio news and talkshows almost from the moment I woke up to the time I went to bed (I was in construction at the time, and wore one of those garish radio sets on top of my head). This went on for years and years. When I started doing a lot of late night work remodeling doctor’s offices after hours, I even listened to Art Bell, as well as the far, far left Pacifica channel in L.A. But somewhere along the way, I simply got burned out on information, and now I don’t have much to do with the whole mess. To demonstrate how bad it’s gotten, I just found out last month that Peter Jennings had died! Hehehehehe! Yep, I am SERIOUSLY out of the loop, it seems. Like Thoreau, I’ve adopted the attitude that most of what we deem newsworthy, and so goddamned important that we MUST be privy to all the details, pretty much boils down to socially acceptable and self-important gossip.

Anyway, I gather that FOX has pretty much taken over the airwaves these days. My conservative mother swears by them, but if what I’ve seen on my visits to her home are any indication, it seems the inmates have taken over the asylum. I mean, is this Bill O’Reilly guy a fucking putz, or what? But I’ve found somebody worse. His name is Glenn Beck. I came across this clip while researching Stein’s movie, and was amazed that this utter doofis actually has his own show. What a fucking joke! Where do they get these people, anyway. Aren’t there more qualified news-persons out there looking for work? Jesus, it took me two or three tries to get beyond this goof’s obvious insufficiencies before I could even concentrate on the substance of his conversation, if ‘substance’ can even be used appropriately in this case. Anyway, I meant to post this video a lot earlier, but got sidetracked and totally spaced it. Here you go...



Oh my! “If the New York Times hates a movie, you’re gonna love it? Well, I’ve got a movie that the New York Times hates! It’s called ‘Expelled’, so you know it’s gotta be good!” Jesus Christ in a dumptruck! Doesn’t this guy know he’s poisoning his own well before the first bucket’s been drawn? Or is he just broadcasting on some public access channel in Crawford County? And what’s with that delivery? Is this supposed to seem homespun, or sumpin’? Yeesh!

Next, Ben Stein is introduced, and Beck says “You are the smartest guy I know”, to which Stein replies “No I’m not, I’m very stupid when compared with you.” I’ve gotta be fair here, and put them on an equal footing. Which is disappointing. In fact, I’d imagine a lot of Americans are disappointed. Stein’s always had this image of being a pretty astute fella from what I’ve seen in the past. On the other hand, O.J. was supposedly a nice guy, and look how THAT turned out. Ah, Hollywood! Silk purses, and all that.

After lamenting the fact that his child(ren?) is ‘learnin’ stuff in college(sic)’, Beck decides it might be informative to actually read the Times movie review...um...outloud. Hahahahaha! Even I was squirming for Ben! ‘Sleazy. Conspiracy Theory Rant. Unprincipled. Propaganda. Insults believers and non-believers alike.’ Immediately after which, Beck encourages all religious folks to go out and see it. Amazing! He and Stein then go on to talk about the ‘standing ovations’ the movie received all over the country. I can’t help but wonder if the crowds were anything like the one in the movie, gathered in a university to hear Stein speak. Turns out, they couldn’t actually get any real turnout from the students, so they packed the auditorium with a fake audience, much like Lyle Waggoner’s in one of the original infomercials hawking penile implants.

They then move on to a clip from the movie, the Dawkins interview I covered previously. Stein asks Dawkins how science might go about looking for traces of intelligent design in Terran biology. Dawkins explains briefly how we might look for markers evidencing some otherworldly machinations by, say, aliens from another planet. Of course, the segment of the interview Beck uses conveniently begins AFTER Stein has asked his original question, which leaves Dawkins looking like he is arguing for the extraterrestrial position, instead of merely answering Stein’s ‘what if?’. Utterly dishonest; and, in fact, even Stein pulls the same bullshit right in the film in his role of voiceover narrator, when he says “Wait a second! Richard DAWKINS thought intelligent design might be a legitimate pursuit?” No. Ben STEIN just thought he’d pull a fast one by framing Richard Dawkins answer in the wrong context.

Beck then has a little chuckle over the idea that Dawkins can infer (in Beck’s and Stein’s imaginations, anyway) that he is willing to invoke ANY creator EXCEPT for the bronze age bush burning thunder deity of the Old Testament. First of all, Dawkins isn’t invoking anything, he’s simply doing his best to answer what turns out to be a bad-faith question in terms of naturalistic science. This amuses our boys to no end, since of course they’re privy to the knowledge that life really arrived on Earth via the magic powers of an invisible, intangible superbeing who can design a universe on a whim, yet is too stupid to put a fence around a goddamned apple tree! For shame, Richard...you’ve been sooooo punked!

What follows is the usual litany of denigratory phrases batted back and forth like an infidel shuttlecock at the God-Fearers badminton tournament and fish-fry. Atheists are arrogant. Atheists are miserable. Athiests are overly-defensive of unproven theories. Atheists are shortsighted. Atheists are closeminded. Oh, and my favorite. Scientists aren’t REALLY about science; they’re simply ‘anti-God’. Well, let’s see. Chemistry, medicine, physics, astronomy, as well as the host of technology-based disciplines that have allowed idiots like these two to proclaim their idiotic beliefs across the world via the several means of mass communication available because of...what was it? Oh yeah! It was SCIENCE! Hm...in other words, both these chaps are making their livings from advancements made at least in great part by anti-Godders. Imagine that!

Oh yeah, I almost forgot. Stein once again reminds us that evolution doesn’t explain gravity, nor thermodynamics, nor abiogenesis. Duh, duh, and duh. Geology doesn’t explain why my knee hurts, either. So.the.fuck.what? And one other thing...atheists have no morals. Not real ones, anyway. Not the kinds you can be eternally punished for breaking. Good thing God doesn’t punish for rampant stupidity, I guess.

Finally, remember my ‘and it gets better’ remark? Beck signs off with ‘Go see the movie. It’s called ‘Exposed’. LOLOLOLOL! As if ‘No Intelligence Allowed’ wasn’t enough! I literally laughed my upper intestine out through my nose. The dog got ahold of it, I had to chase her around the house to get it back, and let me tell you it was a real bitch shoving that sucker back into place! All that, and it never DID explain thermodynamics. Arrogant, close-minded upper intestine! Anyway, like Stein reminds us, there IS an intelligent creator, and his name is G.O.D. Geodie? Sounds Italian. Ah! Now I understand the Vatican connection!


UPDATE: 'Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed' received a 10% freshness rating at the 'Rotten Tomatoes' movie reviews website. I thought I'd cut and paste some off the first page for your amusement:


To grant Expelled any credibility beyond the opening minutes requires nothing short of a leap of faith.


Might there be a way to get to God through science? It's a fascinating notion and I wish the slickly produced Expelled investigated it more thoroughly.


This film is cheerfully ignorant, manipulative, slanted, cherry-picks quotations, draws unwarranted conclusions, makes outrageous juxtapositions, segues between quotes that are not about the same thing, tells bald-faced lies, etc.


Expelled is a classic bait-and-switch, presenting itself as a plea for freedom in the scientific marketplace of ideas, while actually delivering a grossly unfair, contradictory, and ultimately repugnant attack on Darwinists.


Despite some occasionally sloppy filmmaking, I think the picture is worth a look. It raises important ideas and issues, asks important questions. No one could argue against that, right? Bueller...Bueller...Bueller... (this is a postive one!)


Regardless of your personal views, Expelled's heavy-handed bias (a visit to Darwin's home gets the same eerie music as a tour of Dachau) is exasperating.


Like Moore, whose documentary-cum-polemical style they are clearly imitating, the makers of Expelled give their critics too much ammunition, so even if you're sympathetic to some of the ideas and the underlying argument, it is still difficult to defend.
Junk science meets even junkier filmmaking in Expelled -- a no more shameless, stupid and loathsome piece of propaganda has ever skulked its way into the theater.


Ignorance may be bliss, but encouraging it, as Expelled does, ought to be a crime.


works in much the same way as a Michael Moore documentary -- a raft of provocation and very little persuasion


Don't expect any serious debate here about God and evolution. This documentary is like watching a paranoiac making fun of a hysteric.


I don't say the film is crap because I disagree with it. I say it's crap because it disagrees with itself. It teems with contradictions, false dichotomies, and specious reasoning.

And much, much more...

DOUBLE UPDATE: Btw, and lest I be accused of being unfairly selective in my targeting, one of these negative reviews is by Roger Ebert, main butt-buddy of faux-documentarian and all around obnoxious tweaker of the truth Michael Moore. Long story short, Ebert never met a leftie he didn't like, and some of his reviewing suffers immensely because of it. The guy pans 'Zoolander' because the sub-plot revolves around the murder plot of a national leader in a comedic way, then gives a green light to 'American Dreamz', a comedic take on the attempted assassination of George W. Bush, as well as a film my younger daughter (aspiring film maker and critic) calls 'perhaps the worst film I've ever seen in my life'(and believe me, she'll watch ANYTHING!). Not to mention 'Wag the Dog', another leftist piece of thinly veiled, propagandist dreck. But next to 'Expelled', Moore's 'Fahrenheit 911' is the epitome of objectivity; a fact which is in and of itself, tragic.

Why Is There SOMETHING, Rather Than NOTHING?

I don't really care for the first part of this argument. Seems overly facile, and rooted in semantics. Tries to pull its validity up by its own definitional bootstraps, much like the ontological arguments for God. But the rest seems logically dead-on to me.

I really don't see the problem theists have in positing an eternal existence sans God; other than the obvious one of needing a justification for what they already believe, that is. In fact, it's basically the same argument AS the theistic one, minus the metaphysically oriented first-mover-existing-outside-space/time mumbo jumbo that only serves to complicate a rather elegant--and may I say, straightforwardly apparent-- solution regarding the existential question as to why there is something, instead of nothing. Dear theist, if you're looking around incredulously right now in disbelief that this frighteningly vast universe could exist 'just because', consider how exponentially more incredible it is that an invisible superbeing who could create something like this on a whim exists 'just because'. Now THAT boggles the mind!

TWIM/RvA Dialogue...Cathode Rays, Etc.

TWIM LINK

RULES OF ENGAGEMENT

This is another installment of TWIM’s series regarding the nature of evidence. And once again I’m less interested in the particulars of the body of the article, which boil down to ‘sometimes we get things wrong’, than I am with the logical inferences bringing into question the ultimate validity of attempting to ascertain evidentiary truths. I’d like to jump right down to the meat of cl’s argument, if I may:

So, what's the lesson to learn here, and what is the larger analogy in discussions of (a)theism?

There exists a certain subset of atheists and skeptics who lean with great confidence on the impression that each and every stepping stone of their philosophies constitute justifiable beliefs, but as the case of cathode rays demonstrates, that beliefs are deemed "justified" even on account of repeatable experiments has nothing to do with whether those beliefs are in fact true. In fact, I'll go out on an epistemological limb here, and provisionally argue that there is no objective, undeniable reason to prefer justified beliefs over unjustified ones: justified beliefs often prove false (as did belief in cathode rays), and unjustified beliefs often prove true (as did belief in asteroids).

I assume that by ‘justifiable’, cl is referring to the habit of applying truth valuation according the the collection, examination, and ultimate acceptance or rejection of a proposition by any given body of investigators. He points out that many times in the past, seemingly justified beliefs have been later overturned by new information and/or understanding. But then he indeed goes out on an ‘epistemological limb' when he states:

...that there is no objective, undeniable reason to prefer justified beliefs over unjustified ones...

To be fair, and considering his use of the qualifiers ‘objective’ and ‘undeniable’, I believe he’s saying that in terms of ultimate belief regarding the nature of reality, it is impossible to come to a categorically unassailable conclusion about ANYTHING, short of confining arguments to the rather artificial structure of a deductive syllogism. But then he performs what I believe to be an unreasonable jump into epistemic thin air, by positing in the above quote what comes down to an assertion that all judgments regarding evidences, lacking absolute justification, are equal. He might disagree with my characterization of his argument here, but I’ll be damned if I can find any other reasonable conclusion to fit what he’s said. Perhaps he’ll enlighten us, and I’ll stand corrected. In this respect, I believe he’s launched himself straight into the N.O. space again, where less-than-categorical certainty devolves into an ambiguous, anything goes approach to anything from mental phenomena to magic powered lady bugs. I know he doesn’t actually think this way, but his argument marches inexorably down that road, like it or not.

Folks, reality is NOT a deductive syllogism, as David Hume pointed out yay so many years ago. Like it or not, we are stuck with relative, inductive certainty given any issue relating to the real world. We draw inferences and extract conclusion based on the way things seem to operate, and the possibility of being mistaken is just part of the deal fate has handed to us. I noted earlier that syllogisms are artificial constructs. I say this because all syllogism rest upon agreed upon pre-suppositions at their starting points. Here’s one of the classics:

All Greeks are men.
Homer was Greek.
Homer was a man.

Note, the basis of this syllogism is a pre-supposition i.e. ‘all Greeks are men’; and, in fact, is a false one. Regardless of what you may have heard concerning Greek sexual proclivities in times past, there really ARE Greek women. However, the syllogism itself, standing apart from actual reality, is definitively true according to its own terms.

This principle remains true even in mathematics, supposedly the most stringent of deductive disciplines. A mathematical formula holds true ONLY insofar as the value of every single factor is agreed upon. And in a way, that’s exactly what people do when they argue their positions. To make a relevant case, and to further that case via dialectic investigation, one must seek agreement as to the particulars every step of the way. Without such agreement impelling each new step in the argumentative chain, discourse comes to nothing. This is a process I like to think of as ‘objectifying the subjective’; establishing a de-facto deontology through trial and error, establishing agreed upon pre-suppositional bases so that the wheel doesn’t need to be re-invented every fucking time somebody says something new.

Of course, one common tactic of the modern apologist is to downplay the significance of induction (reason gleaned through experience that falls short of categorical certainty), because induction doesn’t play well in the court of implausible premises. It’s much more convenient to flee into the realm of the N.O. in an attempt to level the waters of opposing axioms through denial of certainty i.e...

...there is no objective, undeniable reason to prefer justified beliefs over unjustified ones...

There may indeed be no reason to prefer justified beliefs over unjustified beliefs in the unalloyed air of the N.O., but in the real world? Sorry, cl, but it just ain’t so. If you’re really shopping for ‘epistemological security blankets’, you might want to try the N.O. district. There’s a shop on every corner.

So, besides the obvious psychological self-soothing, what do we really gain to say that our beliefs are justified, if the quality of being justified is no reliable indicator of truth?

Every time you take a step with relative assurance that the ground isn’t going to gobble you up, you’ve answered your own question.

TWIM REPLY:

(Here's cl's response as it came via email. I'll tidy it up later).

jim at RvA has responded to Asteroids, Cathode Rays & Requisite Knowledge, Pt. II, and once again, my response follows.

This time, jim begins with an excellent summary of a baseline belief I actually do hold:
To be fair, and considering his use of the qualifiers ÔobjectiveÕ and ÔundeniableÕ, I believe heÕs saying that in terms of ultimate belief regarding the nature of reality, it is impossible to come to a categorically unassailable conclusion about ANYTHING, short of confining arguments to the rather artificial structure of a deductive syllogism.
That's exactly what I'm implying when I say that we all walk by faith. For the sake of these arguments, we all accept that absolute certainty is unattainable in any given situation. When it comes down to it, we're all blind hitchhikers wandering through the galaxy, and we each have our own little mantras we cite to soothe ourselves along the way. D Ñ who once reminded you that everybody has a gris-gris Ñ says, "Always walk in doubt." I say, "I cannot but believe." Another says, "There is no God." Granted, the faith of some is blinder than others in any group, but because we're literally such babes in the vastness of the universe, we must all walk by faith, regardless.
Getting back to it, after beginning with an excellent summary of a baseline belief I actually hold, jim draws an out-of-scope conclusion to support a long-standing misunderstanding of my position that I'll be more than happy to [again] address:
..then [cl] performs what I believe to be an unreasonable jump into epistemic thin air, by positing in the above quote what comes down to an assertion that all judgments regarding evidences, lacking absolute justification, are equal. He might disagree with my characterization of his argument here, but IÕll be damned if I can find any other reasonable conclusion to fit what heÕs said. Perhaps heÕll enlighten us, and IÕll stand corrected. In this respect, I believe heÕs launched himself straight into the N.O. space again, where less-than-categorical certainty devolves into an ambiguous, anything goes approach to anything from mental phenomena to magic powered lady bugs.
I commend jim's willingness to finally concede that he may in fact have been misunderstanding this all along. As his link suggests, jim has consistently alleged that my style of argumentation is an "appeal to [non-omniscience]" which results in an "anything goes" philosophy. This has been a focal point that's led to many mean-spirited remarks from jim in the past, even though I've tried explaining to jim before that such was not my position:
My opponent suggests that because I questioned the cogency of DD's so-called Undeniable Fact on appeal to DD's lack of omniscience, that I must abandon all appeals to evidentiary persuasion in any direction regarding anything. Friends, this is simply stupid. (cl)
It's unfortunate that jim has refused to either understand or believe me when I've been maintaining the same thing for months, but hey Ñ he's an atheist Ñ trust issues come with the territory.
Now, in the specific context of one of DD's arguments, I did once use the fact that DD is "not omniscient" to challenge an argument he made. Yet, jim misconstrued that isolated instance as some epistemological rule of thumb of mine, when it was not, nor has it ever been. Unfortunately, jim got it lodged in his mind that such was my epistemological rule of thumb, and thus began jim's consistent false association of "appeal to N.O." as my strategy. I won't go so far as to claim jim's been disingenuous, because I have no idea how closely he read that post, if at all. 
However Ñ let it now be clear beyond a shadow of a doubt Ñ that I *DO* believe it is ultimately "impossible to come to a categorically unassailable conclusion about anything" *DOES NOT* translate to, "all judgments regarding evidences and lacking absolute justification are equal" in my epistemological rule book. 
Further, I don't think jim ever realized DD's "ambiguous, anything goes approach" to explaining purported miracles. If he did realize it, then his complaints are selective. After all, DD actually used the following as part of his argument to deny the miraculous nature of my hypothetical re-capitated man:
What if it was an elf, or a pixie, or a leprechaun, or an invisible dragon? Or a SMERFÑa Spontaneous Magical Entropy Reversal Field? Any of these things could be responsible, if they were real. (DD)
jim apparently had no problem with DD's handy "ambiguous, anything goes approach" to explaining why a man's head might suddenly re-attach itself after prayer, so where's the consistency? 
Who's really "[devolving] into an ambiguous, anything goes approach to anything from mental phenomena to magic powered lady bugs?" It becomes ironic to note then that the full sum of jim's objections against me Ñ which have been many Ñ constitute sound objections to DD's aforementioned "ambiguous, anything goes approach" to explaining why a man's head might suddenly re-attach itself after prayer. 
On to jim's next objection of relevance, shall we? Here it is:
Folks, reality is NOT a deductive syllogism, as David Hume pointed out yay so many years ago. Like it or not, we are stuck with relative, inductive certainty given any issue relating to the real world. We draw inferences and extract conclusion based on the way things seem to operate, and the possibility of being mistaken is just part of the deal fate has handed to us.
I agree completely. How much of DD's response played by those rules, jim? I mean fer cryin' out loud, can't we have some degree of "inductive certainty" if a man's head were to re-attach itself after prayer? Further, look at your handling of the video game incident. You yourself took an "ambiguous, anything goes approach" of your own post, positing over a dozen hypothetical explanations, everything from "aliens" to "pixie dust" to "invisible psychic warriors." Get real.
Moving along... I don't think anybody needs a review of syllogisms, so I'll dismiss those paragraphs as irrelevant intellectual posturing on jim's behalf. 
When it gets down to it, it appears the meat of jim's objection to my post is,
There may indeed be no reason to prefer justified beliefs over unjustified beliefs in the unalloyed air of the N.O., but in the real world? Sorry, cl, but it just ainÕt so. (bold mine)
IOW, when it boils down to it, I'm wrong because jim says "it just ain't so." Yet, that's the same argument the Fundamentalist uses.
I've stated before that jim's epistemology seems to be, "jim will beileve what jim will believe for whatever reason jim wants," and this could be construed as further evidence in that regard. I submit that he's failed to provide me with any legitimate reason to prefer justified beliefs over unjustified beliefs as an epistemological rule of thumb.
In conclusion, the salient point jim misses is that as with "there's no evidence for God" claims, atheists and skeptics who assert "justification of belief" to imply the superiority of their position don't have anything concrete going for them. The whole point of discussing "cathode rays" and asteroids was to demonstrate that,
..justified beliefs often prove false (as did belief in cathode rays), and unjustified beliefs often prove true (as did belief in asteroids).
So, I further asked,
..besides the obvious psychological self-soothing, what do we really gain to say that our beliefs are justified, if the quality of being justified is no reliable indicator of truth?
I submit that the entirety of jim's answer to that question was,
Every time you take a step with relative assurance that the ground isnÕt going to gobble you up, youÕve answered your own question.
Yet, especially where I live in San Francisco, I don't hold "the ground won't gobble me up" as a justified belief in the first place. Indeed, the ground just might gobble me up the next time I check the mail.
*******
To recap: 
1)  That I believe it is ultimately "impossible to come to a categorically unassailable conclusion about anything" does not translate to, "all judgments regarding evidences and lacking absolute justification are equal" in my epistemological rule book;
2) In the context of our METAdebate, jim apparently had no problem with DD's handy "ambiguous, anything goes approach" to explaining purported miracles;
3)  Atheists and skeptics who assert "justification of belief" to imply superiority of their position don't have anything concrete going for them.
As usual, jim didn't touch any of that.

TWIM/RvA Dialogue...Evidence

TWIM LINK

RULES OF ENGAGEMENT

I’ll be trying different approaches in these critiques, looking for the best way to maximize clarity. A lot of this will probably be determined by the nature of the article itself. For instance, I’d planned to do a section by section fisking with this one, but after a second reading I’ve decided the problems don’t so much lie in the body of the piece, much of whose reasoning I agree with, as in the nature of the criticism which the body is meant to justify. That said, this first one will probably be pretty short.

Many atheists — dare I say the majority — operate under the assumed premise that "there's no evidence for God (and/or the supernatural)." Many wave this around as some sort of trump card, but I opine that such is merely biased opinion masquerading as justification for denial. Like DD, I believe "there's no evidence for God" is one of the worst arguments floating around (a)theism, and I remain puzzled as to the strange, pseudo-intellectual pretense with which I see that argument waged. Today and tomorrow, I'd like to review two examples from science's history that I think illustrate the weakness of the "there's no evidence for God" argument. The larger analogy to (a)theism should be apparent.

Right off the bat, there’s some rhetorical posturing going on here. “Many wave this around like some sort of trump card”, front-loading a portrait of the opposition as unjustifiably cocky before a rebuttal to their position has even been outlined. “Biased opinion masquerading as justification for denial.”. More of the same. Their opinions have already been framed negatively in terms of being deceptive (masquerading), before the horse is even out of the chute. “Pseudo-intellectual pretense”, a somewhat overused depreciatory term, and speaking to supposed motivational factors which are entirely assumed on the part of the writer. All examples of poisoning the well.

... I believe "there's no evidence for God" is one of the worst arguments floating around (a)theism...

In actuality, what the person who utters those words really means is that they've not been persuaded by anything hitherto offered as evidence, which is an accurate assessment of the matter. From an atheist, this is also a tautology, because if it's known that the person who says "there's no evidence for God" is an atheist, that they've not yet been persuaded by any evidence is merely redundant. In rigorous discussion, I believe one would be justified in rejecting the "no evidence for God" argument solely on these grounds (subjectivity, tautology), but I think we have other sound reasons to reject it.

Note that "there's no evidence for X" is really just a generic argument where X always represents some proposition whose theoretical or ontological possibility is being denied.

The mistake being made here again and again is that the assertion ‘there’s no evidence for God’ is being addressed, and rejected, as if it were an actual argument. The subject making this assertion may very well have arguments which may or may not back up his claim, but we’re offered no specifics here with which to form an opinion one way or the other.

Let me reverse things to make what I’m saying clearer. A theist says to me “There is a God”. The appropriate response would be something like, “Really? What evidence do you have to back up your assertion? Offer it to me, that I might weigh it against my understanding of the world thus far. Maybe I’ve overlooked something.” The inappropriate response would be “What a silly, pseudo-intellectual pretense of an argument! And since I know you already believe in God, your ‘argument’ is also redundant, simply made to justify your conclusions.”

These are my cosmetic objections. Next, on to the substance of what I believe makes this a fatally flawed piece.

cl goes on to write about how peoples’ rejection of evidence doesn’t necessarily preclude the possible realities behind that rejected evidence. A valid point, if somewhat obvious. Basically he’s just saying we’re not always right about what we believe. Fair enough. We’re not always privy to information in the structuring of our beliefs, and thus our beliefs can be altered by the acquisition of new knowledge or understanding.

My real problem with this article is that I believe cl’s critique boils down to a semantical quibble, centering around the term ‘evidence’. The quibble is partly justified, in that we often use language, and indeed think, less than precisely. However, I also believe the quibble ultimately misrepresents the actual depth of meaning behind the assertion ‘there is no evidence for God’. When cl says-

In actuality, what the person who utters those words really means is that they've not been persuaded by anything hitherto offered as evidence, which is an accurate assessment of the matter.

he acts as if he’s correcting the context of the atheist’s assertion, when in fact this is the universal meaning behind the general use of the phrase ‘there is no evidence’ or conversely ‘there IS evidence’. In the course of any discussion, there’s a deep ocean of unspoken subtext that always needs to be considered in order to have a conversation in ‘good faith’*. When a theist tells me ‘there is a God’, I automatically take into consideration that this statement reflects a body of knowledge and concomitant beliefs on the part of the subject, and don’t merely reject or lampoon his assertion as substance-less or mindlessly arrogant on the grounds of the assertion itself. This is common sense.

When I say ‘there is no evidence for such-and-such a proposition’, what I’m ultimately saying is that I haven’t found anything which persuades me in a particular direction. Of course, all this gets complicated pretty quickly as we begin to assess the criteria we use in making our judgments, but that’s beyond the scope of this particular criticism. But consider the alternative to our admittedly short-hand meaning behind the word ‘evidence’. For the sake of both clarity and brevity, I’ll focus on one sort of so-called evidence- anecdotes.

Say my daughter comes home from school today, and tells me some jerk-wad was goofing around in class and dinged her trombone. Now, within my personal body of knowledge, her word alone is very good evidence that this actually happened. She can offer further confirmation by showing me the bone boo-boo, and the icing on the cake might come in the form of , say, an email from the offending party, apologizing for his carelessness (a check for the repairs would also be nice!).

Now, let’s say the next day she comes home and tells me that Godzilla showed up and ran amuck on her college campus. Again, I run this factoid through the old brain matter, and what do you suppose I come up with? Well, if I actually take the time to seriously consider the proposition, and don’t automatically reject it as a joke on the old man, I consider a list of many possibilities on which the actual existence of the actual Godzilla ranks pretty low. And after checking the news reports, and maybe even going so far as calling the school (though my skepticism would incline me towards dismissal of the whole story based solely on my daughter’s mischievous grin), I might turn to her and say, ‘My dear, there is absolutely no evidence that your story is true, or that Godzilla even exists.’

I guess what this all comes down to is the difference between evidence, and EVIDENCE. On one hand, any crazy story ever told by anyone about anything can be considered as evidence according to the nit-pickiest, all-inclusive sort of definition. On the other hand, most people are quite comfortable in rejecting questionable claims as ‘evidence’ with the universally understood, though ofttimes unstated caveats.

Ultimately, it seems that the pertinent part of cl’s message can be summed up in the sentence, ‘Reality isn’t always what we think it is, and opinions about what constitutes good evidence are sometimes overturned by that reality’. But then, everybody already knows this...don’t they?

*NOTE: In times past, cl has objected to my use of the terms good faith/bad faith, the implication being that I was using them as ad hominem invectives, speaking to presumed duplicity on his part. I will continue to use the expressions as I deem they are applicable, with the understanding that I’ve stretched the definition to include the failure to take into consideration generally understood subtext, and leave the reader to decipher whether or not conscious motivation comes into play in any given case.

TWIM REPLY:

jim has challenged me to what he offers as a "better way to debate." He's written a rebuttal to last week's post Asteroids, Cathode Rays & Requisite Knowledge, and invited me to write a response to his rebuttal, which he's agreed to post in its original entirety on his blog. 

I accepted the challenge, and my response follows.

All examples of poisoning the well. (jim)

jim's opening claim is that I'm "poisoning the well." The words of mine jim claimed poisoned the well were,

Many atheists-dare I say the majority-operate under the assumed premise that "there's no evidence for God (and/or the supernatural)." Many wave this around as some sort of trump card, but I opine that such is merely biased opinion masquerading as justification for denial. (cl)

I disagree that I've poisoned the well. One definition of "poisoning the well" can be found here:

[poisoning the well] involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person... This argument has the following form: "Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false."

Sharing my observation that the majority of atheists use "there is no evidence for God" as a trump card is just that: my observation. I do not use this observation to argue that claims made by the majority of atheists will be false, which means my statement does not cohere with either the definition of "poisoning the well" given above, or the form of the sample argument.

A second definition of "poisoning the well" can be found here:

..attempting to poison the well is a logical fallacy where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say.
Note again that I did not present adverse information about a target, nor did I use my statement to discredit or ridicule everything a target is about to say. 

I have shown that two acceptable definitions of the fallacy do not permit jim's opening claim. Further, jim's sudden concern for keeping wells clean is interesting in its own light. As one of many examples I could share, anyone can easily see that he introduces my blog to his readers as a "SOPHISTRY SIMULATOR." I submit that such fulfills both definitions of "poisoning the well" given above, in that jim displays both "[attempt] to discredit what [I] might later claim by presenting unfavorable information," and "[intent] of discrediting or ridiculing everything [I am] about to say." I can only dismiss his charge of "poisoning the well" as unsubstantiated special pleading, at best. I submit that I have not only legitimately exonerated myself from jim's charges of poisoning the well, but further mounted a successful counter-claim against him. We can now move on to his next claim.

*******

jim's third and fourth paragraphs-his so-called "cosmetic objections"-were not worth responding to other than to say I found their clarity wanting, and their import to anything of substance unclear. The pre-agreed rules of jim's dialog preclude any emendations on his part, so I guess we'll have to leave his "cosmetic objections" right where they are. As an aside, I note that although jim refers to my piece in its entirety as "fatally flawed," he also describes certain aspects of my argument with terms like, "A valid point," or "Fair enough," or "partly justified," which seem to suggest the presence of something redeemable at worst. I submit that's at odds with the "fatally flawed" depiction.

*******

jim states what is perhaps his central objection here:

My real problem with this article is that I believe cl's critique boils down to a semantical quibble, centering around the term 'evidence'.

He explains that in normal language, "no evidence for God" and "not been persuaded by anything hitherto offered as evidence" are categorically interchangeable. jim then goes on to claim this interchangeability renders my argument a semantic quibble, presumably because when an atheist says, "there's no evidence for God," such actually "reflects a body of knowledge and concomitant beliefs" that is an unspoken given in any good faith dialog.  

He continues,

When a theist tells me 'there is a God', I automatically take into consideration that this statement reflects a body of knowledge and concomitant beliefs on the part of the subject, and don't merely reject or lampoon his assertion as substance-less or mindlessly arrogant on the grounds of the assertion itself. This is common sense.

jim seems to be under the assumption that I don't take similar things into consideration. He implies that I, "merely reject or lampoon [atheist] assertion as substance-less or mindlessly arrogant on the grounds of the assertion itself." I do no such thing. Nobody should do what jim accuses me of doing here. Nobody should reject a position on behalf of perceived lack of substance or arrogance in an argument. I don't say, "The atheist position is dismissible because atheists who use 'there's no evidence for God' as a trump card are arrogant and lack substance." Rather, I say that all atheists I've encountered who use the "no evidence for God" argument as a trump card either handwave evidence presented, resort to refutation by denigration, or actually concede (for example, SI-who's very fond of the "there's no evidence for God" argument-actually conceded that I'd presented "weak" evidence for a miracle at one point).

*******

jim's next strategy is to give two hypothetical examples presumably intended to illustrate the difference between a "reasonable" anecdote vs. a "not-so-reasonable" one. He presents the anecdote of a jerk-wad goofing around in class and dinging his daughter's trombone vs. the anecdote of his daughter seeing Godzilla at school, then concludes that,

..what this all comes down to is the difference between evidence, and EVIDENCE. On one hand, any crazy story ever told by anyone about anything can be considered as evidence according to the nit-pickiest, all-inclusive sort of definition. On the other hand, most people are quite comfortable in rejecting questionable claims as 'evidence' with the universally understood, though ofttimes unstated caveats.

Yet, the differences between acceptable anecdotes and non-acceptable ones were not mentioned at all in my original post, so jim's comments are dismissible as unrelated musings or non-sequiturs at best. As an aside, I agree that one is more justified in doubting the "Godzilla" anecdote than the "dinged trombone" anecdote. Wouldn't everybody?

*******

jim's closing paragraph reads,

Ultimately, it seems that the pertinent part of cl's message can be summed up in the sentence, 'Reality isn't always what we think it is, and opinions about what constitutes good evidence are sometimes overturned by that reality'. But then, everybody already knows this...don't they?

Yes, I would bet that most everybody does know this. Though pertinent, that was not "the pertinent part of my message," which could be summarized as,

1) Any atheists who respond with "there's no evidence for God" when asked to explain their lack of belief offer a tautology;

2) Strong atheists who respond with "there's no evidence for God" when asked to explain their lack of belief offer an argument from ignorance (as DD argues in his own post I linked to);

3) For ALL claims of type "there's no evidence for X," a certain percentage of those claims are undeniably false, so the theist has no compelling reason to suppose the skeptic's assertion is in the category of "there's no evidence for X" claims that are true, vs. the category of "there's no evidence for X" claims that are false;

4) "There's no evidence for X" is an ill-formed argument, and no justification of anything.

The New TWIM/Reason v. Apologetics Debating Format

*provisional upon cl's acceptance of terms* UPDATE: He's in!

There's one thing I've gotta say for cl over at The Warfare is Mental...he's a thorough apologist. This statement isn't meant to be sarcastic, though there is, perhaps, some irony attached to it. cl is quite apt at exploring areas of ambiguity in the areas of semantics and epistemology, exploiting the finer shavings of nuance in those areas to build his arguments which are generally fashioned to support his theistic worldview. Those arguments are well worth being analyzed and responded to by the other side, I think. For one thing, I believe his approach mirrors the general one adopted by most of the somewhat more sophisticated branch of modern apologists.

Now, let’s be honest. cl and I haven’t exactly gotten along in the past. Each of us has his opinion as to why this is so, but I want to bypass all that, and offer an olive branch in the form of a solution that I think is both fair, reasonable, as well as conducive to a new era of dialogue between us. I’m making this offer because cl tends to address the kinds of issues--from a theistic perspective, of course--that I designed this blog to address. Here’s how it’ll work-

Whenever cl posts an article at his blog that I’m interested in speaking to, I’ll create a new post over here, provide the link to his post, then post my own commentary. The header will include some kind of marker; say, TWIM/RvA dialogue, or something to that effect. cl will have a standing invitation to email any rebuttal or remarks he cares to offer to me, which I will post as an addendum to my piece, complete and unabridged. And that, dear readers, is where the conversation will end. No other codicils or alterations will be allowed, except for perhaps embarrassing spelling errors, poor word choice or other insubstantial brain farts, which we all make from time to time...and that will be it! Since I’ll be the one making the challenge, I thought it only fair that cl be offered the last word, with absolutely no rebuttals from me whatsoever.

I think this is an elegant solution to a problem that plagues typical comment threads. The arguments just seem to go on, and on, with statements being repeated over and over again ad nauseam. You just end up with a lot of posturing, bad feelings settle in, trolls descend in a feeding frenzy, and nothing ever comes close to resolution. I’m not saying that anything will be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction in this new format, either. However, I DO feel that both parties will recognize the necessity of arguing more carefully, more completely, and I have great hopes that we’ll avoid the sort of cascading obfuscation that leaves everybody in a muddle regarding what the conversation was about in the first place.

If for some reason cl decides not to participate in this experiment- and believe me, there’ll be no rhetorical twisting of arms on my part- I’ll go ahead and try to deconstruct his arguments sans his participation. Or, if for his own reasons he decides to
rebut me from his own blog, then more power to him, and no hard feelings. I’ve decided that, for me, the route of arguing within comment threads is a dead-end, an exercise in futility that I have no interest in anymore. There’s this last-man-standing mentality in the threads that I just can’t stomach these days, and in the end, true resolution lies in the minds of the individual reader, anway, and not in whichever debater manages to wield the biggest mass of pixels.

Anyway, the next time I choose to comment on one of your posts, cl, you are welcome to post whatever response you like here, under the conditions as I’ve outlined them. I’m hoping this will reduce the acrimony, but that’s really not my main concern. I think this exercise offers each of us a chance to think and write more cogently, to stay on point, and most of all, to have some fun. As I’m writing this, I’m imagining you nailing me on this or that point I’ve missed, and smiling because my own rules will prevent me from countering or clarifying in any way. The pressure’s mostly on me, I think, and I fully expect to find myself eating some humble pie from time to time. The best thing is that the reader will truly be the judge, and that can’t be a bad thing.

Btw, no responses to this post. I’m afraid that’ll have to wait for the actual arguments, if and when you decide to play along.

Over at TWIM you'll find the theist's ultimate disputatious bunker, explicated in such pristine form that I just had to offer it here, as an example of what would probably make a pretty exciting amusement park ride: Escape From Reasonable Discourse! *please keep your arms, legs and minds INSIDE the vehicle* The article typifies, once again, the apologist's last gambit...it's all faith! God, Ghosts, or the existence of Pluto. Faith. Faith. Faith! Read it and weep.

I've touched on this subject from various angles-

here
here
here
here

and especially

here.

This is the final apologetical hidey-hole, folks, along with its corollary challenge "Prove the validity of logic using logic"! There's no win to be had here. At this point, the theist has closed his eyes, put his fingers in his ears, and is shouting "La la la la la! I can't hear you! I can't hear you!"

Walk away.

Some Thoughts on Design

IDers seem to be making a lot of hay about the apparent evidence of design in the universe these days. From the ‘fine tuned cosmological balances’ which, if altered even infinitesimally (or so we’re informed), would result in a universe inhospitable to life, to the mind-boggling ‘fact’ that bananas just happen to perfectly fit our hands and mouths (chuckle...puts a new spin on masturbation, as well as...well, you know), it seems that proof of God’s handiwork is simply EVERYWHERE, if only we weren’t so stubborn as not to recognize it. The argument is usually put forth in the form of an analogy...

“When we see a modern skyscraper, or a painting, or an intricate piece of machinery, we immediately assume a designer behind them. Or, whilst walking along the sandy shore we should discover a pocketwatch, we know it’s origin is one of man’s invention, and that it’s not simply a part of the natural background. Along these same lines, when we see the incredible intricacy built into existence, especially in such complex systems as the human brain, or in the labyrinthine structure of DNA- things which are far more complicated than anything man is able to design or build- isn’t it reasonable to assume a Grand Designer behind the whole thing?”

This is a bad argument for a couple of reasons. First of all, we usually recognize manmade artifacts because we are familiar with other manmade artifacts, and can generally make comparisons fairly easily, through personal experience. This isn’t always the case, however. For instance, man can also design something that blends in with the surrounding environment, such as a false reef, or artificial trees. The less incongruous the artifact is with it’s environment, the less likely we are to recognize it for what it is. What’s even more amusing is the deep irony in the analogy’s basic premise, in that we recognize design precisely because it stands apart from nature’s ‘non-design’, when it is nature’s design which theists are trying to prove in the first place.

Beyond these cursory arguments, however, lies a deeper flaw in basic reasoning. It’s a mistake we’re all guilty of, not just theists. As supposed individual ‘egos’, we all tend to see ourselves as agents standing outside of, or apart from, our environment, so as to manipulate that environment in ways of our own choosing. Part of the illusion of ‘self’ is to see ‘one’s self’ as an autonomous agent moving through the world, changing things according to our individual or collective wills. It’s ‘consciousness’ over here, manifesting the emergent properties of our minds over there. No wonder, then, that we should posit a Universal Overmind standing apart from It’s ‘creation’ in much the same way that a sculptor steps back to look in admiration upon his own handiwork. However, none of this seems to be the way existence actually operates.

From a naturalistic point of view, so-called design, at any level you choose, is simply the natural culmination of what’s gone before, and depends solely upon where you’ve chosen to draw the line between the designer, and the designed. Here’s an analogy: stand up one domino on edge. Next to it, stand up 2 more. Next to them, stand up 4 more. Continue the process on out to, say, a Billion dominoes. Next, veil your perception of the field of dominoes somehow, so that all you can see are the first domino, and the very last line of dominoes. Finally, tap over the first domino, and voila! Somehow, magically, one little domino has moved many, many dominoes! But only because your perception was restricted to a very limited view of what was actually happening, and skipped most of the steps in-between.

What we see as design is actually no more than pattern recognition within the flux of the ever-changing universe. We are as much a part of that flux as anything we supposedly ‘create’. In fact, there is an unbroken connection between everything across both time and space, to the extent that biologists are now beginning to recognize things like habitat as an actual extension of the organism itself (apologies for not providing links to this idea, but for the life of me I can’t recall where they are right now). In light of what we now know, it could be no other way. Physically, nothing really stands apart from anything else. Everything IS one, not in the new-agey sense, perhaps, but the fact of the matter is that everything is merely a cloud of quantum interactions, clumping into various patterns and thicknesses here and there. Nothing about us is solid from moment to moment. We are what we eat, and we eat what we are.

In this sense, we have two options vis-a-vis design. On one hand, we can say that everything is designed, if design is defined as pattern. However, unlike the theistic view (or the ‘little theistic’ view as pertains to us seeing ourselves as designers), all design comes from the ‘inside’ i.e. design is an emergent property of existence-as-a-whole in flux. It is spontaneous, unguided creation from moment to moment...the dance of the universe.

On the other hand, we COULD do away with the concept of design altogether. Stuff simply happens, from abiogenesis to volcanoes to viruses to Rolex watches; and, most importantly, all the stuff in-between those things, which lead up to those things, and in fact are all part of those things. The important thing to recognize is that there are no sharp edges between one thing and the next, other than those invested upon existence by the limitedness of our perceptions. Perhaps not a dance, then, but more of a universal cataleptic seizure, if you will (or perhaps it's dancing on one foot...catalectic hip-hop...UNIverse...LOL!) The unpoetic version of all-there-is. Actually, we’re bound to see things from both perspectives, since from an evolutionary perspective we are bound to patterns. That is to say, we are patterns within patterns, surrounded by patterns, infused by other patterns, which in turn binds us to the illusion of patterns.

Get it? Good.

Adieu

I've spent an inordinate amount of time on this subject the last few months, neglecting my other blogs. This needs to be remedied. Plus, I still owe my publisher a conclusion, and I'm getting a hankering to write some new poetry, as well. Not to mention I REALLY want to finish this rather technical book on cognitive science I've started (listed on sidebar). I do believe it's time to drop out of this crazy world of anti-apologetics for a while. And so...that's what I'm doing. Best wishes to my readers, and if you find yourselves wondering what I'm up to from time to time, click my profile. It's been fun, ladies and gentlemen. See you all in near future.

UPDATE: I've had a few days to think about my decision to 'drop out' of the religion debate, and I thought I'd share some of my feelings about it.

I've been an ex-Christian for 26 years now. It's been an interesting, and for the most part satisfying intellectual journey since then. I've managed to work my way through the details of several religious and pseudo-religious belief systems in the intervening years, including the various metaphysical junkets of many, many Western philosophers both ancient and contemporary. Frankly, it's all become sort of a blur. Nobody's really come up with anything new; everything's just sort of re-packaged and re-presented, and none of it really grabs my interest anymore. The thing that's jumped out at me is the psychology behind these various superstitious modes of grasping reality. As far as I'm concerned, it's all based in desirism, and society-enforcing pedagogy. All-powerful, invisible cop-on-the-beat, as it were. Don't get me wrong. The history is fascinating, as well as the cogitative jumping through hoops to maintain what is, in essence, a chimera. But the message is a bore, man, and the apologetical postman just keeps delivering the same dreadfully incoherent letters from crazy Great Aunt Edna with that rather lunatic smile on his face that...well...frankly has me wondering how we've managed to progress as a species as far as we have.

Anyway, I originally started this blog as a way to record the thoughts I've managed to form over the years regarding this sad state of affairs, but never took the time to fully form in my own head. If you're like me, you might sometimes discover that in the process of writing things down, you learn things about yourself that actually startle you. It's a pretty cool process, and I've enjoyed it immensely. What I do NOT enjoy is going over the same ground again and again with internet trolls. Oh, it's fun for a while...ego a ego, and all that shit. But it's ultimately futile, unless you're just looking for a fight all the time, which I am not. Plus, there's all that other unfinished stuff waiting in the wings. Looking for that left brain/right brain balance, if you know what I mean. I've got something like 2000 poems to be refined, plus my antinatalism work, which is my true passion. I just started another blog on a series of poems focused on Kali, the goddess of destruction, which dovetails nicely with the other stuff. I'm also deconstructing a couple of movies, 'Eraserhead' and 'American Psycho', just for fun. Also trying to squeeze in some serious reading where I can; I've been letting that slide lately, surely to my detriment.

I've decided to go ahead and shut down comments here. I'll still post as time and inspiration allow, but I've completely lost interest in the dialogue. I'm still reading the posts, but bypassing the comment threads these days. After all, I'll only end up either agreeing with those I happen to agree with, or wind up arguing with idiots for no good reason at all. The learning curve has flattened out, ladies and gentlemen. I can't find an even slightly persuasive argument for the existence of traditional gods these days. And in the light of what science and plain old common sense tell me, today's apologetics seem obtuse and irrelevant to the point that they literally hurt my teeth. Maybe the old passion will flare up again down the road, but for now that's pretty much it.

Y'all take care, and remember...there is no God. No Jesus. No Allah. No Jehovah, or Vishnu, or Thor. There are certainly mysteries to existence, but they will never include the reality of ancient deities born from superstitious, primitive mindsets. It just ain't happening.