as I was doing, below, and for which I was criticized by my old arch-nemesis, "Q":

Just as the role of the state has transformed science and deformed it, the role of the state has been to deform education and learning. Compulsion and public tax support are the common destructive elements. The right-wing or tax-supported approach — the current matter of government aid to Lockheed, which developed from government contracts, is instructive — with its twin of compulsion must be confronted.

School has become the world religion of a modernized proletariat, and makes futile promises of salvation to the poor of the technological age. The nation state has adopted it, drafting all citizens into a graded curriculum leading to sequential diplomas not unlike the initiation rituals and hieratic promotions of former times. The modern state has assumed the duty of enforcing the judgment of its educators through well-meant truant officers and job requirements, much as did the Spanish kings who enforced the judgments of their theologians through the conquistadors and the Inquisition. Two centuries ago the United States led the world in a movement to disestablish the monopoly of a single church. Now we need the constitutional disestablishment of the monopoly of the school, and thereby of a system which legally combines prejudice with discrimination. The first article of a bill of rights for a modern, humanist society would correspond to the First Amendment to the US Constitution: "The state shall make no law with respect to the establishment of education." ~ Leonard P. Liggio, reviewing Ivan Illich, Deschooling Society, here.

Clearly, Liggion and Illich are dominated by their prejudices and religions indoctrinations.

My arch nemesis, whom I’ve taken to calling Q, makes a claim which is not entirely surprising. In response to this previous posting, he asserts:

“Is there any debate amoung [sic] independent scientists that have investigated climate changes? Yes of course but about details and not about global warming or it's [sic] rate. I mentioned independent because taken [sic] the word of a scientist who works for the oil industry about global warming is as valid as taken [sic] the word of a doctor working for the tobacco industry about what causes longcancer [sic] or of a 'discovery center' scientist about evolution.” (emphasis mine)

One thing I have really enjoyed about Q is his demonstration of the sort of reasoning commonly employed by left-liberals. This is a typical left-liberal gem: refute or dismiss your opponent’s position by asserting something objectionable about your opponent, rather than pointing out any errors in fact or logic.

Q acknowledges debate, among “independent” scientists, over “details”, and does so in a way that suggests that these details are either irrelevant, insignificant, or both. (The 1957 movie, “Twelve Angry Men” is a great illustration of the relative importance of seemingly “unimportant” details. But I digress.) In the end these “independent” scientists, despite disagreement over details, don’t disagree on the “important” things.

There are other scientists, on Q’s view, who are not “independent” and who therefore are not to be trusted. These “dependent” scientists are those who work for the oil industry. Trusting them – taking their word for anything related to global warming – is not valid. Here we have a notion he calls “independence” and which he uses to judge the “validity” of taking the word of some scientist. It is not valid to take the word of a scientist who works for the oil industry. It seems, therefore, that “independent” means “not working for the oil industry.”

With the understanding that the precise debate over global warming that I have in mind is whether it is anthropogenic, the argument expressed by Q goes, I think, something like this:

Assuming: (a) that any scientist who works for an oil company (or is otherwise connected to the oil industry) is not “independent”; and (b) that, by “properly ignorable” we mean to express a thought similar to Q’s assertion of the invalidity of taking the word of non-independent scientists;

Then:

1. All Non-independent scientists are properly ignorable in debates having public policy implications.
2. Scientist Joe, who claims that global warming is not anthropogenic, is a Non-independent scientist.
3. Therefore, Scientist Joe is properly ignorable in a debate with public policy implications.

We might add that (1) is true especially in circumstances in which Joe’s assertions are contrary to a consensus of so-called independent scientists. No persuasive definition there by any stretch of the imagination!

In fact, this rather poor argument is assailable by two avenues: property rights; and this silly notion of “independence.”

First, even an oil company, in a debate about whether use of its product is destroying the planet, has the right, as the defendant if you will, to call his own expert witnesses. In other words, in a free society, even an oil company has the right to be heard in arguments about public policy. Not only that, but let’s remember who these oil companies are. These companies are the people who own them; so even if we wanted to say that the oil companies don’t have a right to be heard, the people who own them, being constituents – citizens of the U. S. – have a right to be heard.

Someone I know is invested in Chevron. She is not a wealthy woman; but she is a stockholder. Her oil company has a duty to her to protect her financial stake. If there are “independent” scientists out there asserting that her oil company’s product is destroying the planet, she has a right, through her oil company, to have the witnesses against her oil company confronted.

My wife is invested in a retirement fund which owns stock in Exxon Mobile. She has the same right. The people who own stock in oil companies have a right to protect their property. The upshot of this left-liberal argument is that any scientist in the employ of someone who may be adversely affected by public policy decisions ought to be ignored on the simple grounds that his employment makes him biased and therefore untrustworthy.

We actually have people asserting that in a free society we ought to accept this as reasonable: “We are going to inflict upon your industry public policy measures designed to deal with the fact (according to our consensus, anyway) that your product is destroying the planet. And we will ignore any scientist you may employ to confront us, on the grounds that his employment by you makes him non-independent and therefore untrustworthy.”

That’s not mere nonsense; it is noxious to a free society.

Second, this notion of “independence” and its relation to “trustworthiness” is problematic. I mentioned persuasive definition above. That is what we have here with the word “independent.” With this word, Q (and he’s not the only one) pretends “to describe the 'true' or 'commonly accepted' meaning of [the] term, while in reality stipulating an uncommon or altered use [in order] to support an argument for some view, or to create or alter rights, duties or crimes.”

The typical left-liberal does precisely that. He juxtaposes “independent” scientists with other scientists, scientists who work for the oil industry. For some reason, only those scientists who do not work for oil companies are “independent.” (And it is not so clear what it is these scientists are “independent” of.) Those other scientists, the “dependent” ones, deserve to have their biases enquired into and their integrity called into question. Why? Well because they are not “independent” and (gulp!) they have questioned the consensus. (How dare they? Help! Police!) Those scientists who make up the consensus are, we may assume, people of the highest character and integrity, with no biases we need to enquire into, no integrity we need question.

One would think a scientist who bucked the system and took on the consensus would be called the “independent” one. But no, in this case, “independent” means going along with the majority, or whoever the left-liberal sides with. (It reminds me of the way young people express their individuality: by dressing and acting like everyone else in their peer group.)

We are not really told how it is that a scientist, simply by not being employed by an oil company, is “independent” and therefore someone whose word can safely be trusted. Neither are we told why it is that a scientist who works for the oil industry is no more to be trusted than one who works for a tobacco company or (my personal favorite) a “discovery center”.

I suppose we are to believe it is because a scientist working for an oil company is being paid, not to do scientific investigation, but to issue pronouncements; his interest is his employer, the oil company, not the truth. Never mind that this is speculation and not fact. Never mind the possibility that the truth may very well not be with the consensus. Never mind, also, that it tells us nothing about anthropogenic global warming. It only matters whether a scientist is “independent.” It only matters that he does not work for an oil company, or a tobacco company, or a discovery center.

The “independent” scientist, on the other hand, since he doesn’t depend upon an oil company for his livelihood is free to pursue science for its own sake, following the facts wherever they may lead him. I mean, we all know that people who work for the government, or for non-profits are better people, more trustworthy.

Yeah. Right. We are asked to believe that people who wish to impose punitive measures on an entire industry are trustworthy on the sole grounds that they don’t work for the industry upon whom these punitive policies will be imposed. Color me skeptical.

Besides, “independence” is irrelevant. The validity of taking anyone’s word is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether global warming is anthropogenic, to what extent and whether anything can truly and realistically be done about it.

When there are such questions, “consensus” is also irrelevant, especially when (a) the existence of this consensus is used as little more than an excuse for summarily ending debate, (b) the members of this “consensus” are treated as secular clerics, whose consensus is given the weight of a Church Council, determining what shall be orthodox doctrine and (c) those who disagree with this orthodoxy are treated just a little better than the way The Church used to treat heretics.

All in all, then, I stand by my assertion in that previous posting: a free society ought not declare an end to debate, or refer to a debate as illegitimate when it has policy implications. Indeed, as I said above, such a notion is noxious to a free society.

This is the substance of a comment (here) in response to the visitor I have taken to calling Q. Given it’s nature it really belongs right here on the front page. So here it is.

Q writes, among other things:"What is even a bigger demonstration of your intellectual dishonesty is that when I do, you then ignore it."

I can't think of a single comment you've ever posted to which I have not responded, usually point by point. Clearly you think I don't succeed. But ignore you? If it has happened, it certainly hasn't been intentional.Intellectual honesty is a pursuit of mine. It's one of the reasons I blog. I read your comments at least twice. If I fail at intellectual honesty that also is not intentional.You know, I can see that you have been angry with me since I linked to the Paul Belien article (here), and then subsequently had the temerity to suggest that Europeans are all a bunch of Paris Hiltons. I don't really think that. In a moment of haste, I had the idea and posted it without giving due consideration to how it would come across. I understand now, especially seeing that you yourself are a former soldier, how insulting that suggestion was. (I'm sure I know how insulting I would find it.) At the time, what I was thinking was "If what Belien says is true, then why should it be?" But to suggest cowardice and "bimbo-ness" so indiscriminately -- not one of my better moments.Sometimes one does, or says, something which seems like a good idea, or seems funny, at the time, but in retrospect really wasn't.I repent. For whatever that's worth to you.

Now that isn’t going to resolve all of the difficulties he and I have. I remain sceptical of the scientific credentials of any theory of origins. He says it’s because I don’t understand science. That’s as it may be. I still think that ‘Scudderite’ is an appropriate (but not unsulting) term to use in reference to Democrats, who, I sincerely believe, are a party whose attitude towards property rights is precisely that they exist at the pleasure of those who do not seize property. It’s not intended as an insult; it’s intended to be decription-by-allusion. I still believe that all people have presuppositions, or pre-rational intellectual commitments. I believe that belief in God is one such commitment; so is dis-belief in God. I also persist in my belief that asserting “Belief in P is presuppositional” is not affirming the consequent.

I admit to being sarcastic. I admit to coming on strong. But I do not view these as sinful, and thereore inconsistent with my profession of Christian faith.

An insult, however, (such as calling the general population of an entire continent a bunch of Paris Hilton’s) is a different matter entirely. I retract the assertion.

Finally, Q seems to be of the understanding that I think once I've posted it here that's the end of it. Any statements of fact I make are incontrovertibly true; any arguments I make (or attempt, however poorly) are irrefutable. Such is not the case.

One asserts what one believes to be the facts as well as one can establish them to best extent possible. Then one awaits correction. One proffers one's best arguments (even if those 'best' are actually the worst). Then one awaits refutation.

The fact that I've written here doesn't mean I believe that's the end of discussion. Quite the contrary, in fact. I merely think of myself as beginning a discussion, or taking up one that is ongoing. If it meant that I wouldn't allow comments to be posted here; and I certainly would not respond to them.

Again: For whatever all this is worth.

Q writes here a comment on this posting.

“The reason I can't be bothered to put forward an argument because if you haven't heard the arguments before you either a simpleton or aren't interested in them. Why should I take time to write that which you will simple dismiss.

Yes. Well, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for me to want to hear from you the justifications of your beliefs. You are certainly getting mine, however poor you think they may be. The fact that I would like to hear from you about what you believe ought not be understood as lack of familiarity with the arguments of others. I am 41 years old. I have been a Christian for 19 years, and sceptical of evolutionary theory for far longer. You are the first person I’ve encountered who has a position contrary to my own, who recognizes no epistemic obligation to justify his beliefs. “The arguments which support my beliefs are ‘out there’, “ you say, “and it’s not my responsibility as the believer in those arguments to present them to you. It is your duty to go find them. I can’t be bothered.”

And you don’t know me, so you have no idea what I’ll simply dismiss. Those who know me well, know that I dismiss very little when it comes to such serious issues. I treat every argument as if I’m hearing it for the first time.

“YOU don't understand science at all. If you did, if you understood what "theories" are. What has been and can be tested. What those tests means. If you understood the mechanics of biology, genes, DNA, etc... then you would get of your pompous highhorse.

I do understand science. Your simply saying otherwise – again and again –
doesn’t make it so. I do understand what theories are. It is interesting to see you mention “what has been and can be tested.” In my original post I asked about the testability of statements such as that , “Big changes…came about as the result of a series of small changes” and that Archaeopteryx is a transitional form.

The only evidence you have that I don’t understand the mechanics of biology, genes, DNA and so forth is simply my scepticism of some of evolutionary theory. Don’t you think it’s a bit of overkill to say of someone who has a problem with really only one theory that for all science he understands no science?

Since you mention genes and DNA, think about the principle that “Like gives birth to like.” Applying the rules of logic normally we would think this implies both that (a) “Creatures will reproduce offspring that are (i) like them and (ii) like their own parents” and (b) “The offspring will not reproduce offspring which cannot reproduce themselves.” Evolutionary theory tells us that actually the principle that “Like gives birth to like” is true only up to a certain point. That certain point goes beyond variation. Clearly we observe variation within species. Supposedly the number of variations increases to the point at which we have an offspring which is significantly NOT like its parents, a new species. (And we’d better hope that, somehow, there are two – male and female – or that new ‘species’ won’t survive it’s first member.)

As I pointed out, the theory of gravity is testable. I just don’t see how evolutionary theory can be. And I wouldn’t be the first to point this out. Previously, I mentioned Popper’s characterization of evolution as a “metaphysical research programme”, a characterization he based on his own observation that evolution, as a theory of origins, is simply not testable. (Personally, I'm a bigger fan of Popper's student, Paul Feyerabend. For whatever that's worth.)

As for my “pompous high horse”, I have re-read my original posting (as well as the follow-up to it) and I just don’t see the pomposity. (Unless, of course, simply being skeptical of your non-theistic creation myth makes me pompous.) Note that the original posting was entitled “Intelligent Design v. Evolution: an observation”. An observation, my friend, is not identical with a decree from on high.

“All you did in your original message was the equivalent of saying that because no one has ever see a gravity particle it means that the theory of gravity is wrong.

Oh, please. This is similar to Lorin’s assertion (to which I responded here) that my position would imply that astronomy is not science because we cannot drag stars into labs and hatch supernovae.

Anyway, what I said hardly has the implication you claim it does. Gravitons are hypothetical elementary particles, by definition unseen. The ability to see them is irrelevant to either classical or quantum mechanics.

Besides, in a certain way, gravitons are incidental to the theory of gravity. (You didn’t specify which theory of [which] gravity you were talking about, so pardon my paucity of expression here.) Gravitons are supposed to mediate gravity. Whether gravitons can be seen or not, gravity appears to be mediated by something. Gravitons are postulated on the basis of what we see when experiments are performed. Whether gravitons can be seen or not, we can still make and test predictions utilizing the theory of gravity.

In my original post, I mentioned, among other things, the problems posed by so-called transitional forms. I asserted, first, that any talk of any fossil being the remains of a ‘transitional form’ is question-begging. It assumes the theory itself is true. Especially is this the case when the putative ‘transitional form’ is used as evidence for evolution. I also claimed that talk about ‘tansitional forms’ was meaningless because since ‘big changes’ are simply accumulations of ‘little changes’ then every member of every species is quite possibly a ‘transitional form’. This means, I also said, that there are no transitional forms, for any practical purposes.

Note another difference between evolutionary theory and gravitational theory. An assertion about the evolution of a wave function can be tested. The assertion that a species S₁ evolved over millions of years from a member of another species S₂ is not testable. The assertion that some number of variations accumulated over millions of years will result in a new species is not testable. That Archaeopteryx is representative of the transition from reptile to bird is not testable. Whether or not gravitons exist theories of quantum mechanics are testable in ways that evolutionary theory is not.

Finally, on this matter, I didn’t say evolutionary theory was wrong. I said I was skecptical of the scientific credentials of any theory of origins. In case you just hadn’t thought of it before: there’s a vast difference between saying that a theory is wrong, and saying that you are skeptical of it.

“You show time and time again that you have no understanding of true science, scientific methods nor even the prinicple of deducing trends let alone facts from data provided.

You want to talk about deducing trends. Fine. You can ‘deduce’ a trend and make a prediction based on an observed trend. If the prediction bears itself out, then fine. And here’s a difference between evolutionary theory and a theory of gravity. With a theory of gravity you might predict the location of a particular body at a particular time, based upon the observance of a ‘trend.’ You can then experiment and see whether the body is at the predicted location at the predicted time.

Evolutionary theory doesn’t quite work that way, does it? It doesn’t make predictions about future states of affairs (or at least not future states of affairs that any of us will be able to observe); it offers speculation about the past and no way of testing those speculations.

And as for deducing facts from data provided, do you mean like when scientists deduce a transitional form from a fossil, rather than simply a feathered reptile, or a reptile whose fossilized remains give the appearance of having been feathered?

“... you have no prob' with Brussels Journal's Paul Belien.Not even although his wife is member of a party that is infamous for it's Nazi roots. Not even when the top people of that party have a neo-nazi past.Not even when Paul himself only has a problem with that party when they are to soft, on certain issues, to his liking.Not even when Paul got in trouble with putting up a text that was cleary hate-mongering and racist. No....you love the guy. Your defence ? If he was facist/racist he would be anti-jew and seeing as that Jezus was a jew and he is pro Christianity you are sure that they are no such thing.*cough*stupid*cough*

Q, you just cannot be paying attention to my replies to you. I never said I had no problem with Paul Belien; I don’t know the man. I have indicated a willingness to stipulate with you that he is a Nazi, pending your provision of the requisite evidence. But I have also maintained, on strictly logical grounds, that his being a Nazi just does not falsify any claim he made in the article to which I linked (in this posting) and about which you have been so exercised.

This insistence of yours that something objectionable about an opponent somehow refutes his assertions continues to surprise me, coming as it does from someone with your maturity of mind.

And I most certainly did not employ this ridiculous reasoning (attributed by you to me): “If he [Paul Belien] was facist/racist he would be anti-jew and seeing as that Jezus was a jew and he is pro Christianity you are sure that they are no such thing.” What I said was that the reason their being Nazis would be objectionable to me is precisely that I am a Christian. I didn’t say anything in defense of Paul Belien. I certainly have nothing that can be interpreted as love for him; and I most certainly said nothing about his being “pro Christianity.” I really don’t see how you failed to grasp that.“

Are you a deviant? Recalling your confession about how you mistreated your siblings in a bullyish manner I'm sure you are.

I have already responded to this (here) and won’t do so again.

“Are you a sholar? Perhaps you are. The US is famous for having colleges that are a joke.”

Does telling people that sort of thing make you feel like a staggering intellect? Let’s take a look at what we have here: a tacit assertion about a college you don’t know, attended by a man you don’t know, which assertion is based not on any facts you have at hand, but on the basis of a bigotted stereotype.

If that is what you take for maturity of mind, then I shall take it as a compliment that you think I haven’t got it.

A reply to ‘Q’, continued

As I mentioned in this previous posting I owe an explanation for why I hold belief in God as a basic belief and, therefore, a pre-rational commitment. There are different arguments for belief in God as basic. Alvin Platinga is one who has done much of the work (going back to a 1986 article in the journal Faith and Philosophy) on the belief in God as "properly" basic. See for example the article, “Intellectual Sophistication and Basic Belief in God" (here). My own reason (which does not discount anything Platinga has written on the subject) has to do with certain limitations, weaknesses, even failures of arguments for the existence of God.

Typical arguments for the existence of God must involve the employment of either inductive logic or deductive logic. (That’s obvious enough.) Both have their limitations. And it is these limitations that lead me to accept the idea that belief in God is a pre-rational commitment.

In an inductive argument a finite set of facts forms the basis for moving from the known to the unknown; and in making that move we must actually take a step of more beyond the evidence. For example if Mark is accused of murder and we want to make the move from what we know about the murder to knowledge that Mark is the one who committed the murder we must gather the relevant facts and see if they warrant the conclusion that Mark is guilty. Here are some things we need to know. 1. What was the time of death? 2. Was Mark at the scene at or about the time the murder was committed? 3. Did Mark have the means to commit the murder in the way that it was committed? 4. What would be Mark’s motive in committing the murder? Whatever the answers to these questions we must bear in mind that we are able to know that these are some of the questions which need answers because humans have documented experiences with varieties of killing. We know how to proceed from ignorance of Mark’s guilt to warranted belief in his guilt because we know what constitutes murder and we know Mark, or at least enough about him to know how to determine his guilt.

Let us say that the victim was bludgeoned to death. Let us also stipulate that a hair follicle found at the scene puts him there, and that eyewitness testimony not only puts him at the scene but puts him there within an hour, plus or minus, of death. But, let’s say that the victim was struck on the top of the head, that other physical evidence (e.g. direction of blood spatter and wounds on the victim’s back) suggests that the victim fell to the floor after being struck, that Mark is a wheel-chair bound quadriplegic, and that neither his chair nor anything at the scene of the crime could have given him the elevation needed to strike the killing blow. (Let’s also agree that Mark is not faking his disability!) We shall have to look elsewhere for our murderer.

None of this is the case when it comes to God. For one thing we have a problem with definitions that we do not have regarding Mark. We have experience of humans, even of Mark. We don’t really have to worry about defining ‘Mark’ into order to investigate his role in a murder. If we are to begin with nature in investigating God’s existence, we are going to find that nature doesn’t do a very good job of providing us with a definition of ‘God’.

We can set up the problem in this way. We want to know if the universe (i.e., the small part of it we have knowledge of) gives us evidence of the existence of God. For purposes of discussion let us define ‘God’ as "God is a Spirit, in and of himself infinite in being, glory, blessedness, and perfection; all-sufficient, eternal, unchangeable, incomprehensible, every where present, almighty, knowing all things, most wise, most holy, most just, most merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth" and “creator of the universe.” Surely we can tell whether the universe gives evidence of the existence of such a being.

But can we?

Let’s say that someone says that the universe actually tells against the existence of ‘God’ as we have defined the term. The universe, if it tells us anything about God, tells us that God may not be infinite in perfection: the universe that this putatively perfect God created is certainly not perfect. If our beliefs must conform to the evidence before us then we must conclude the existence of an imperfect God. And given that fact, we are probably warranted in questioning the wisdom of God.

Of course this is true only insofar as our intuitions about the universe are correct. They may not be. This also depends upon our definition of perfection: lacking nothing. If the universe was created by God as defined above and if it does precisely what God intended in creating it then it is perfect. The problem is that nothing in the universe tells us anything about its purpose, or if it even has one. So we might feel constrained to conclude that the universe exists to inflict suffering upon us. But we could be wrong. On the same reasoning we might also conclude that the combustion engine exists solely to pump carbon monoxide into the atmosphere. Who knows? Whatever the case, we cannot tell by observation of the facts of nature.

On the other hand, one might say, certainly if the God who created the universe also created us then our intuitions about the universe ought to be correct, oughtn’t they? Perhaps, but only on the assumption that nothing has happened in human history to affect our intuitions. Christianity asserts that something has happened to affect our intuitions. If that is correct (but how can we know by simply studying nature?), then we may not trust our intuitions fully.

We simply cannot adduce a sufficient amount of empirical evidence to establish the existence of God, at least not as we have defined God, for present purposes. Neither can we appeal to the empirical evidence to falsify theistic claims. If we are going to limit ourselves to knowing God by empirical studies of nature, then we cannot know whether God has reasons, which even we would find sufficient, for creating the universe He has created, even a universe in which evil is permitted to exist. We could only know these reasons if God told us these reasons; nature won’t tell us. Nature doesn’t tell us anything.

I started this posting by referring to both inductive and deductive reasoning. I’ll have to post on the problem of deductive reasoning in a subsequent posting.

According to Q, I don’t understand science (among other things). (I believe he had this posting in mind.) Typically, he offers no explanation of where I went wrong, just makes the assertion that I don’t understand science. (And this in a comment in which he, again, takes me to task for just making "lots of statements.")

I’ve long been amused by the sweeping generalizations made by believers in evolutionism about those who are sceptical of it. You can be sceptical of Big Bang cosmology, as proponents of Steady State Theory once were (in some cases still are). No problem. You won’t be told that you don’t understand science. You won’t be accused of being anti-science. You can be sceptical of the Standard Model of particle physics. No problem. You won’t be told that you don’t understand science. You won’t be accused of being anti-science.

There are about five theories about why the (Western) Roman Empire fell. If you reject one, or even all of them you won’t be told you don’t understand history; you won’t be accused of being an irrational obscurantist. You can believe that mathematics is a true science; or you can believe that mathematics is not a true science. No problem. You won’t be told that you don’t understand science. You won’t be accused of being anti-science.

You can believe, with Einstein, that science ought to proceed from examinations of physical reality and capture all aspects of it, have an emphasis on internal consistency and avoidance of asymmetrical or contradictory explanations, and create a visualizable understanding of the meanings of the scientific theory; or you can believe, with Niels Bohr, that a scientific theory need not capture all aspects of physical reality and therefore did need not possess an intuitive physical meaning or be entirely free of contradictions. Whether you agree with Einstein or Bohr, you won’t be told that you don’t understand science; you won’t be accused of being anti-science.

You can believe that a theory of origins can be properly scientific; or you can believe otherwise. But here it’s different. Here, with a theory of origins which, unlike relativity, cannot be falsified by experiments and which, unlike Big Bang cosmology, does not begin with observations in the present and about present states of affairs and extrapolate from presently observed phenomena past states of affairs -- here it is totally different.

Express the least bit of scepticism about this theory, a single theory -- a single theory, mind you! -- and you are told that you don’t understand science. In fact, you’re anti-science. Think of it! For all science you understand no science, because you are sceptical of a single theory. For all science you are anti-science, because you are sceptical of a single theory.

I wonder why that is? Could it be because evolution, as a theory of origins, has religious implications (for both theists and non-theists), that other theories don’t have?

Q, when you read an expression of scepticism about the scientific credentials of a given theory, responding with "You don’t understand science," in addition to being a bit of overkill, is also ad hominem, an assertion about the person stating a position, rather than about the position itself. (I know you hate hearing that, but it’s not my fault that it’s true.) Here is a much more intelligent comment on my scepticism of evolution’s credentials. Note that the author of said comment actually presents, however brief, an argument, rather than the ridiculous assertion that for all science I understand no science. Take a lesson.

Bearing in mind that Q has never met me, it may be interesting to note that Dr Lewis Irving Held, of Texas Tech University thought enough of my understanding of science to recommend me for an undergraduate research fellowship in biology (that recommendation was in the form of a letter of recommendation). (Family matters meant that I could not apply for the fellowship after all, but I think I still have a copy of Dr. Held’s letter of recommendation somewhere in my personal effects.) What may be most interesting about Dr. Held’s recommendation is that I was never -- ever -- a science major at university. I was a liberal arts major. (This was all back in the 1990s, but my understanding of science hasn’t changed. And, what’s more, Dr. Held didn’t think to ask what I thought about evolution when he wrote that letter of recommendation. His recommendation was based on my coursework performance, not my philosophy of science.)

What gets me about these people is that they are often the same ones who mourn for Galileo because of the way the Church treated him for his heterodox views. Kind of like the way that people get treated today for being sceptical today's orthodoxy, evolutionism. Oh, yeah, and global warming.

"You don't understand science," is easy enough to say, but if one's grounds is simply scepticism about a theory -- a single theory -- then "You don't understand science" just isn't enough. Did I also mention that it's ad hominem? Typical Q. Oh so typical.

I await your next brick.

A reply to ‘Q’ (at last)

In his last set of comments Q managed to raise a point which I would be remiss in not dealing with. I’ve been meaning to post this for several days now, but I didn’t want to give the appearance that this blog was going to be a never-ending series of replies to Q. Believing that a sufficient amount of time has elapsed, I want to deal with that point now.

In previous postings (here and here) I asserted that belief in God is a pre-rational commitment. I was responding to Q’s question about the difference between God and the Tooth Fairy, and said, among other things:

[B]elief in god is as much a pre-rational commitment as is belief that rationality is superior to irrationality. Belief in the toothfairy is not ‘properly basic’. I count that as an important difference.

Q responds by saying first:

Toothfairy versus GOD

Both can't be seen. Both can not be perceived in any direct manner. Both seem to do stuff in secret and know things that they couldn't unless they were all seeing and all knowing.

and:

A line such as "belief in god is as much a pre-rational commitment as is belief that rationality is superior to irrationality" doesn't prove a thing. It's an opinion. That's all. More over it's an opinion that draws a conclusion from an equation that is deemed to be correct as a starting point. It translates to : if A is true then B is true to. B is true. Therefor [sic] A is true. E.g.: Belief in the FSM (Ramen) is as much a pre-rational commitment as is belief that all circles are round. See, I just made clear that there's a flying spaghetti monster so you should worship it !

To his first response I say simply that he just can’t be serious. Employing a similar logic I might as well attempt to demonstrate that there’s no difference between an apple and an orange. Observe:

Both have skins. Both have seeds. Both grow on trees.

Wow.

That’s what happens when you try to pass off recitation of superficial similarities as profundity of thought. Clearly, despite similarities, there are important differences between apples and oranges. Q’s recitation of the similarities between God and the Tooth Fairy tells us nothing.

In his second response Q says

1
(a) that my claim that belief in God is a pre-rational commitment (or a basic belief) proves nothing;
(b) that my assertion is a conclusion reached by affirming the consequent (i.e., If A then B. B. Therefore A.); and

2 that he can make clear that there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster merely by asserting that belief in the FSM is a pre-rational commitment.

With respect to both 1 and 2 he is, frankly, way off base. With respect to 1(a) I didn’t say anything was proved by the assertion, only that this truth (i.e., that belief in God is a pre-rational commitment) distinguishes God from the Tooth Fairy. I’m confident of this because, despite what they may tell their children, people who believe in God do not also believe in the Tooth Fairy. (I never told my child there was a Tooth Fairy, or a Santa Claus, or an Easter Bunny and so forth.) If Q thought I was trying to prove something by the assertion that belief in God is a pre-rational commitment then he wasn’t paying attention.

With respect to 1(b) it should be now clear that since I made no argument about belief in God being a pre-rational commitment it simply is not possible for me to have committed the logical fallacy he attributes to me. “Belief in God is a pre-rational commitment” hardly has the form “If A then B. B. Therefore A.”

What I mean by saying that belief in God is a pre-rational commitment is that, however one comes to have such belief, such belief really does not come at the end of a chain of reasoning. Let’s say you have a belief, B₅, and that your belief B₅ is based on another belief, B₄, which in turn is based on your belief B₃. You can see that what you have here is layer upon layer of beliefs, which if followed backwards take you back to a fundamental belief which we will call B₀ because it is not based on a more fundamental belief. B₀ does not come at the end of a chain of reasoning; it is the beginning of a chain of reasoning. B₀ is for you a basic belief.

Leaving God aside for a moment (so to speak), an example of a basic belief would, I think, be the belief that positive evidence must be presented for any and all beliefs (beliefs about the nature and purpose of existence, the nature and possibility of knowledge, and of ethics) including belief in the existence of God. Note the nature of this belief. It is hardly a belief for which one could provide evidence. “I believe,” one says, “that people ought to provide evidence for any and all beliefs – beliefs about the nature and purpose of existence, the nature and possibility of knowledge, and of ethics – including belief in the existence of God.”

Clearly there is no positive evidence to support such a claim. A belief like this would be like a belief B₀. Not only is it not based on some other, more fundamental belief, it is difficult to see how it could be. Any attempt to justify this belief will assume as true precisely the belief that we are attempting to justify. In other words to say that there must be a belief which serves as the basis for the belief that positive evidence must be presented for any and all beliefs assumes that positive evidence must be presented for any and all beliefs. The belief that positive evidence must be presented for any and all beliefs is therefore basic. This is why I said that the commitment to reason is pre-rational. You can commit to rationality (however you may define it), but you can’t justify that commitment by an appeal to reason.

So, getting back to Q, my saying that belief in God is basic, or a pre-rational commitment, wasn’t intended to prove anything. The question I was answering was not, “What evidence do you have that God exists?” but rather, “What is the difference between God and the Tooth Fairy?” One difference, again, is that belief in God is – at least for some – basic, while belief in the Tooth Fairy is not even seriously entertained by any philosopher with whom I’m familiar, living or dead, much less entertained as a pre-rational commitment, or basic belief. Even children, in my experience, who believe in the Tooth Fairy do not hold that belief as basic. (And children do have basic beliefs.)

I cannot take belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster as basic, not even to humor Q. The Flying Spaghetti Monster was offered up as, and intended to be, a caricature in response to the Intelligent Design controversy. Its ‘pedigree’ tells us that it is not entertained even as a serious belief, much less a basic one.

Having explained something of what I mean by pre-rational commitment, I owe an explanation for why I hold belief in God as a basic belief and, therefore, a pre-rational commitment. But I’ll have to do offer that explanation a subsequent posting.

According to Q I “make no arguments only complaints, statements, accusations. [I] use innuendo and hide behind words to smear those that [I] don't like while trying to claim that [I am not] doing any such thing. When [I] do [I am] being sarcastic and if one takes offence then it's ones own fault. If one uses the same ploy against [me] then one is using an ad hominem. In other words [I’m] using different rules for [my]self and those [I] like and a different set of rules for all others.” And, he informs me, “[T]hat isn't exactly a sign of maturity nor a sign of intellectual honesty nor a sign of intelligence.”

In my previous post (to which Q is replying) I offered what I thought were examples, not of sarcasm or smearing, but of assertions I made and which Q dismissed by making statements about me. Again, I define (and I’m hardly alone) ad hominem as the refutation or dismissal of arguments (which to me include any bearers of truth value) by recourse to statements (even if true) about the person making the argument. Q doesn’t deny this as an appropriate definition. He merely denies that I have made any arguments.

How does one respond to all that, except perhaps to say, “That’s convenient”? He can launch these accusations, but I’m at a loss how to defend myself against, or even admit that he’s right. He makes the claims but doesn’t provide the supporting evidence. He says, for example, that I ‘smear.’ Maybe I do. But he doesn’t point to the offending posting(s). Defending myself from, or even admitting to the charge here is like defending myself against a charge of murder without being told who I'm supposed to have murdered, or when, or by what means and without actually seeing the evidence against me! So I won’t bother doing what I cannot reasonably be expected to do.

The argument to which I can respond, as I understand it, is as follows:

1. Ad hominem is a reponse to an argument, not complaints, bold statements, accustions and innuendoes.
2. James Frank Solís does not make arguments, only complaints, bold statements, accusations and innuendoes.
3. Therefore, my responses to him do not constitute ad hominem.

I deny the truth of proposition 1. Here’s my counter-argument:

A. Arguments, complaints, bold statements, accusations, or even bits of innuendo are bearers of truth value; they all make truth claims.
B. Bearers of truth value, whether they be arguments, complaints, bold statements, accusations, or even bits of innuendo are proper subjects of refutation.
C. Ad hominem is an attempt to refute (or dismiss) any bearer of truth value, whether that bearer be an argument, complaint, bold statement, accusation, or even a bit of innuendo.
D. Q acknowledges dismissing my alleged complaints, bold statements, accustions and innuendoes by making statements about me (i.e., the person proferring these supposed complaints, bold statements, accustions and innuendoes).
E. Therefore, Q did engage in ad hominem.

Or, so that Q doesn’t miss it, my argument is:

1. If A and B and C and D, then E.
2. A and B and C and D.
3. Therefore E.

Not to be unnecessarily contrary, but I maintain my claim.

One more thing: It is interesting to note that in a comment in which he denies engaging in any ad hominem he – again – dismisses the claims made in this Brussels Journal Online article, by asserting that the staff of the Journal are all nazis (and, I suppose, that I would have some sympathies in common with nazis):

“No wonder that you like the ramblings of a racist scaremongering hate spouting facist like those on Brusselse Journal. And yes, I know I can't prove that they are all that because even if I had pictures of them all in nazi uniform giving the nazi salute you would still find a way to justify it.”

That last sentence leads me to believe that Q is a profiler. How else to explain his ‘knowledge’ of how I would respond to pictures of book-burning, goose-stepping, Jew-hating, sieg-heiling morons in uniform? As far as I’m concerned a man who’s all but going to call me a nazi sympathizer better be able to prove that those people at the Brussels Journal are nazis. As we say here in the U. S., Q, “Put up, or shut up.”

In all seriousness, though, I just don’t think Q really understands English as well as he thinks he does. In my previous post, responding to Q’s question, “Does one then try to have a deep intellectual debate with [someone who believes in the toothfairy] or just think that the person is a few baskets short of a picknick?” I made the following statement:

“In order to think that the person is a few baskets short of a picnic one would first have to know that there is no toothfairy. But even so, the answer to this question depends upon the proposition to be debated. Let’s say that I am asked to debate Ruth Bader Ginsberg on some proposition related to U.S. constitutional law. It would be irrelevant to my decision to debate her that she believes in the toothfairy. What she believes about the toothfairy is irrelevant to any constitutional question. Note: this is true even if she says that the toothfairy taught her everything she knows about constitutional law. She could be correct about the Constitution, but wrong about who taught it to her.”

In response Q says:

“Your entire Ruth Bader Ginsberg statement made clear how you are so easily led. You ignore all other factors and believe anything anyone states as long as you think it coincides with your beliefs. Suspension of individual reasoning to the max. Congrats.”

This is why I don’t think he understands English very well: my statement wasn’t about Ruth Bader Ginsberg. It was a statement about just why I would go ahead and debate someone who believed in the toothfairy. I’m just not sure how explaining the irrelevance of someone’s belief in the toothfairy to a debate on, in my example, constitutional law shows I’m easily led. I’m not sure what ‘other factors’ I’ve supposedly ignored. ‘All’ is a pretty broad category. The only thing I’m aware of ignoring in my “entire Ruth Bader Ginsberg statement” is the thing that is irrelevant to a debate.

Perhaps Q can explain just how Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s (putative!) belief in the toothfairy should induce me not to debate her on some matter of constitutional law and simply write her off as “a few baskets short of a picknick”? That would be a neat trick.

And for what it's worth, I have the same feelings about Nazis as Indiana Jones: "Nazis. I hate these guys." My Lord was born King of the Jews. I feel no particular fondness for people who hate Jews.

In response to my previous posting my friend Q replies as follows. I reply, as is my custom, point by point (well, mostly):


Oh my oh my where to begin.

1) Complaining about the democrates using a word like "partnership" is hard to take from someone who is clearly a believer in the righteousness of the republicans. I guess you forgot the instances that George W. has been claiming that the democrates have been already undermining policies, although until recently the rep's had total control of both houses, and calling for bi-partisanship with which he meant to bow to his wishes.

My complaint really shouldn’t be too hard to take, especially since none of it depends on anyone’s ‘righteousness’. I try in my postings to make reference to political parties only in connection with specific policy issues, for example, the minimum wage – here, here, here and here. I never argue, for example, that we should support Republican policies because Republicans are ‘righteous’ or that we should reject Democrat policies because Democrats are not ‘righteous.’ Besides, my sympathies are only peripherally with the Republicans. At heart I find myself aligned with certain positions of the Libertarian and Constitutional parties. (In my profile, I define myself as being a right-of-center ‘Christian-Democrat’. There’s a reason for that.) And I didn’t complain about the use of the word partnership. I denied that there will be any ‘partnership.’ I boldly asserted that there will be no ‘partnership’ in any meaningful sense of the word. Given those clarifications, my ‘complaint’ shouldn’t be too hard to take.

2) To hear that you were mean and rude to your siblings didn't surprise me at all. Anyone like yourself who claims the moral high ground on the sole grounds of being a christian is in my experience almost always someone who acts saintly in plain view but in private is a bastard. Before you go of on a rant, again, just think about how you can justify those actions and how you still fondly remember with your selfclaimed high morals that are Christian inspired. A clue : you can't without portraying yourself as sanctimoneous.

There isn’t much to respond to here, since I have never – ever -- claimed any moral high ground. And I haven’t hinted at possessing any moral high ground. You’ll not find any place where I have positioned any argument which requires that I have the moral high ground. Most certainly not in my last post. Besides, Q, I was 14 the last time I pulled that soda stunt. The youngest sibling was 7 and they were all pretty much on to me. 14 years old, Q. Did you never tease any of your own siblings? Because I teased my siblings over some soda, the words ‘mean’ and ‘rude’ justly characterize my relationships with them? Wow, you’ve changed your strategy: instead of the ad hominem, it’s now the hasty generalization!

You weren’t there, so you have no idea if I was ‘mean’ and ‘rude’ to my siblings. Besides, given that I was likening the Democrat ‘partnership’ to my own ‘sharing’ of soda my description of the event was clearly a bit of self-criticism. So I don’t have to think about how I can justify those actions – as if sibling teasing needs any justification. (Besides, I wasn’t a Christian until I was 23, so it’s not like I was violating any moral code I believed in.)

My siblings have never – ever – doubted my love and affection for them, Q. And guess what, to this day we tease each other with soda. Why just this summer one of my sisters was visiting me from Texas. As she was helping herself to my soda she asked me if I wanted to split it with her. It was soda, Q. They got over it. I didn’t beat them up, or push them around. I teased them with soda. And eventually they always got their soda.

3) You claim that you have no problem with the other party having won the election and all that but at the same time you try your best to be sneering, insulting and demeaning. On top of that you do complain about the fact how they handle themselves. *sigh* Could you please make up your mind or are you a flip-flopping little man just like George W. ?

Nothing about accepting the reality of partisanship precludes my having a problem with the victors pretending that they are not going to behave like victors. I don’t need to make up my mind. It is made up. As I said: “Look. I don’t mind that the Scudderites are in charge: they won the elections. To the victor go the spoils, which means they run the gin joint—at least until the next cycle of elections… . I just wish they’d knock off the garbage about how politics under the new regime isn’t going to be politics the way it has always been played. (Meet the new boss, same as the old boss -- as far as how politics is done.) (emphasis added).” I was very specific about my exact problem. And I didn’t sneer, insult or demean. In normal English usage a sneer is a facial expression. And you don’t know if I made any facial expressions while I wrote that posting. And where was the insult? In referring to Democrats as Scudderites? In referring to Speaker Pelosi as the The Queen Scudderite? I will admit to being sarcastic (which is as much as to admit to being James Frank Solís Bernardo), but not insulting. There was no verbal assault in my posting. I do just happen to believe that Democrat policies do accord rather well with Bertram Scudder’s own views. Democrats are more likely than other parties to support bills like ‘Equalization of Opportunity’ and ‘Anti-dog-eat-dog’, which as I recall are measures that Scudder advocated. Speaker Pelosi just now happens to be the top Democrat in the House. (I’m curious. Do people in your country not resort at all to sarcasm when discussing politics, especially in regard to parties with which one disagrees? I note just the least tincture of sarcasm when you refer to our President. So I think sarcasm is really okay with you.) And when you say ‘demeaning’ do you mean like when you refer to our President as ‘a…little man’? Or when you intimate that he is a fascist? Now who’s being sanctimonious?

4) Trying to make yourself sound erudite by qouting from Ayn Rand only works insofar that you then prove that you understand what you qoute. Your statement about "One holds property only by the courtesy of those who do not seize it." demonstrates that you fail to understand the truth about it.

That would really be something if it were my statement. The statement was made by Bertram Scudder. You can challenge him on it. Besides, since you really don’t demonstrate that you understand the statement, I’m not going to accept it on your mere say-so that I don’t. This is another instance of what I’m talking about in your comments. You say things like, “Your statement to such-and-such effect only shows that you don’t understand this-or-that.” But you offer no explanation of where I am in error. I think I understand Scudder and his real-life ilk all too well. Scudder is one of the ‘looters’, Q. You know it; and I know it.

But even for all that I don’t care for being thought erudite. I want the women, especially “La Señora”, to think I’m handsome and nice to talk to, and the men to think I’m cool to drink, smoke and watch sports with. Heck, I wouldn’t even mind if a few men thought I were handsome; I’m just non-homophobic that way.

Furthermore comparing the fascistiod Bertram to the dems is over the top. Come to think of it, his m.o. bears much more resemblance to yours then to anything I have picked up from Pelosi.

I don’t think it’s over the top to compare one man who’s in favor of taking from those who have, simply because they have, and transferring to those who have not, simply because they have not, to a political party who favors taking from one and giving to another, simply because one has and another does not. Strikes me as a fairly apt comparison.

PS: I'm rather amused to see that it's so easy to get your knickers bunch.

*yawn*
At least I wear men’s’ clothing. Anyway, you amuse me too. It’s nice that we have found something we can enjoy about each other, isn’t it? Besides, it’s not the knickers that bother me so much. It’s this darn straightjacket.

Seeing you post again and again trying to make yourself seem the paragon of virtue, of reason, of civility whilest in the same time you try your best to be insulting would be extremely funny if it wasn't so sad to see it for what it is namely the pathology of your mental state.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear. I wasn't being insulting; I was being sarcastic. Is there no sarcasm in your nation's political discourse? I doubt it very much.

More importantly: Submitting a bit of policy to some analysis, or criticism, does not entail that the one doing the analysis or criticism sees himself as a paragon of anything. I don’t require that people who have some problem with me or any policy positions I may hold must themselves be ‘paragons’ of virtue. If someone disagrees with my position on minimum wage I don’t ask if he is a paragon of virtue. I ask if his position has any factual merit. He doesn’t have to be a paragon of anything. If someone thinks that logic is not on my side of the debate, I do not look to see if he is a ‘paragon’ of reason himself. I analyze the logic of his own argument. Nothing about this blog, or any posting I make, entails that I entertain any notion of being a paragon of virtue, reason or civility. The person making an argument, Q, is irrelevant to the truth of his argument. The relation between arguer and argument is not truth-functional. You think my arguments are false. I get that. But my person – paragon of anything, or not – is irrelevant. To talk to you the way you talk to me: This just shows you don’t understand what I’m saying. You seem to think that all I say is reducible to: “Everyone should be like me, James Frank Solís Bernardo.” Well, that isn’t my feeling on the matter. You are mistaken. Besides, someone who wanted to make himself seem a paragon of those things would hardly admit to teasing his siblings with a bit of soda! Indeed, such a man would have nothing of the kind to admit to in the first place, would he?

For once look up ad hominem and learn what actually would constitute an ad hominem. Your constant berating of me using ad hominems whenever you want to complain about me being insulting when I question your intelligence and education is not only higly amusing but also very selfdefeating.


I look up the word, among many others, just about every time I use it. (That’s just the sort of OCPD guy I am.) Here is a discussion of ad hominem, and another, and another. Ad hominem, like most words, has a range of meanings. In the end it comes to this: ad hominem is a class of argument by means of which one attempts to refute or dismiss an opponent’s argument by reference to something objectionable about the opponent, rather than his argument. And you did it again with this very comment! To wit:

In my posting I denied (i.e., made a factual statement about) that there will be ‘partnership.’ You responded, not with rejoinder (i.e., a factual statement about ‘partnership) but with: “Complaining about the democrates using a word like ‘partnership’ is hard to take from someone who is clearly a believer in the righteousness of the republicans.” Thus, my argument that there will be no partnership is dismissed not because you found any error in the argument itself, but because you find something objectionable about me.

Subsequently, and pursuant to my argument I asserted that the sharing of power will be like my sharing of soda with my siblings (i.e., there will be none). You responded, again without rejoinder (i.e., a factual statement about sharing of power), but with: “You were mean and rude to your siblings.” Again, my point that there will be no sharing of power is dismissed not because you found any error in the point itself but because you find it objectionable that I teased my siblings. (And let’s not forget the hasty generalization involved in deducing from the whole soda affair that as a matter of general course I was ‘mean’ and ‘rude’ to my siblings.)

I explain an allusion to a favorite novel of mine and provide a brief defense of the applicability of the allusion in the present case. You respond, not with any explanation of my error in applying the allusion but by accusing me of trying to make myself sound erudite (and implying thereby that I’m not erudite).

Going back in history, I recently posted this on what I perceive as a double standard. You respond not with any argument that there is no double standard, but by first attributing to me positions which I do not hold and then by asserting either explicitly or implicitly that I am: ‘full of it’, ‘insecure’, ‘short sighted’, ‘filled with blind hate’, and ‘sanctimoneous’. All of which I may be. But that doesn’t mean that there is not the double standard I asserted.

Going further back in history, I linked to and commented on an article in the Brussels Journal Online, which article asserted that Europeans who desire freedom will have to emigrate. You responded not with facts disputing any assertions in the article, but with: “[I]t seems that the blog you linked to is writen by ignorant and frigtened Americans and Europeans.” (Well, you did claim, without support, that people immigrating to Europe are always brought into the mainstream and eventually give up the ‘crutch that religion is’. But that just means that you may believe that the situation isn’t changing – or that the future will be just like the present -- which is what the article asserts and for which you provided no rejoinder.)

In each of those instances you make your opponent the issue, not his arguments, points, or positions. And that my friend is precisely what ad hominem is. And that is why I have berated you for it.

Btw, if a 25 year believes that there truly is a toothfairy what does one do ? Does one admire that person or think that person needs help?

You’re on the horns of a false dilemma, Q. One can ‘need help’ and still be admired. Someone I admire as a brilliant mathematician is John Nash. But the man is schizophrenic and needs help. If memory serves he thought aliens gave him his ideas. That certainly does not refute his ideas. How does the fact that he sees and hears people who are not there come to have any bearing on whether his intellect is admirable? So then the simple belief in the toothfairy is not the issue. The justification of that belief is the issue. One’s intellect is not suspect on the simple grounds that he holds a position with which you disagree or find nonsensical.

Does one then try to have a deep intellectual debate with that person or just think that the person is a few baskets short of a picknick?

In order to think that the person is a few baskets short of a picnic one would first have to know that there is no toothfairy. But even so, the answer to this question depends upon the proposition to be debated. Let’s say that I am asked to debate Ruth Bader Ginsberg on some proposition related to U.S. constitutional law. It would be irrelevant to my decision to debate her that she believes in the toothfairy. What she believes about the toothfairy is irrelevant to any constitutional question. Note: this is true even if she says that the toothfairy taught her everything she knows about constitutional law. She could be correct about the Constitution, but wrong about who taught it to her.

What's the difference between the toothfairy and god?

The difference between the toothfairy and god is that on an atheistic worldview they do not exist, while on a Christian theist worldview the former (probably) does not exist and the latter does. (Of course, we’re assuming that existence is a predicate.) More to the point, on a Christian-theistic worldview if the toothfairy exists then it does so because it was created by God. The difference then is this: God is the creator and the toothfairy is the creature.

I suspect that the real thrust of the question is rhetorical: belief in god is as silly as belief in the toothfairy. Perhaps it is, but since you didn’t prove that the toothfairy doesn’t exist belief in god is not as silly as belief in the toothfairy. Belief in god is as silly as belief in the toothfairy if, and only if, the toothfairy does not exist. (Of course, I stipulate the difficulty of proving a negative, but it still remains the case that belief in god is not as silly as belief in the toothfairy if in fact the toothfairy exists. And you haven’t shown that it does not. The difficulty of proving a negative changes nothing.)

In an earlier post, I referenced an argument by Alvin Platinga that belief in God is ‘properly basic.’ In other words, belief in god is as much a pre-rational commitment as is belief that rationality is superior to irrationality. Belief in the toothfairy is not ‘properly basic’. I count that as an important difference.

What's the difference between all the "false godse" that other people believe in and yours? Why should the ones th [breaks off here]… .

Books have been written on the question, Q. Either (1)you have read them and are not persuaded, or (2) you have not read them. It doesn’t matter: there’s not much I can do about either.

My friend Andrew comments on my latest response to “Q”, here. (Read Andrew’s, “Not Like a Tame Lion”, here.)

Among other things, Andrew characterizes “Q” as one who brings “a crude hatchet to [a] gun fight.” And to be honest I quite agree with Andrew’s characterization.

Andrew’s comment raises (note: I didn’t say ‘begs’) a question: Why do I even bother responding to “Q's” pathetic cheap shots?

Well, quite apart from the fun that “Q” enables me to have (as far as I’m concerned, and with apologies to Rush Limbaugh, the job of a commentator at a blog is to make the blogger look good), there is also this: I think I have a duty, as a Christian, to give better than I get. I also have a duty, if I truly believe that facts and logic are on my side, to make the best case I can. Otherwise I sound no better than “Q” — dropping my absolute and unquestionable pronouncements and never bothering, by logical rejoinder, actually to demonstrate, or at least justify, any claim I make. Q’s belief system may permit him to do so, but mine does not. Scripture, regardless your view of it, teaches us that we have an ethical obligation to justify knowledge claims.

There is also this. I’m a devotee of Michael Polanyi. In his discussion (Personal Knowledge) of the logical gap which must exist between systems of thought, Polanyi explains that adherents to rival systems must teach each other to think (i.e., think the way adherents to the respective systems will think). They must put their respective systems ‘on display.’

That ‘s what I attempt here. I’m trying to exhibit, as well as I can, how I believe a Christian ought to apply his worldview to the issues of the day – or at least the issues I take up here. Q, in each of his comments, provides me with opportunities to do just that.

I missed this gem from my European friend, Q, in response to this posting:

Yep, how different from when the USA took territory (New Mexico) or how different when Israel took more territory.

You are really full of it aren't you ?
Are you truly that insecure, that short sighted, that filled with blind hate and so sanctimoneous that you have become totally emphatically challenged ?One word springs to mind to describe your narcistic ramblings : sad.

Q, you are an ignorant and irrational man, despite your claims to be better educated and more intelligent than I. I keep waiting for an actual argument from you, an argument, to be precise, on the merits of any case you wish to make. I keep waiting for you to present facts and apply logic to them. Sadly, all I ever really get from you is ad hominem garbage like this.

Well, you do come close to an argument here, when you mention the takings by the U. S. and Israel. But all I can really say is, Nice try.

You see, I didn’t defend either of the takings you mention. So I’m not committed. I can consistently complain of the Muslim takings in the once-Christian middle east without having to say a single word about the takings you mention.

In fact, I don’t think that the U. S. should have purchased New Mexico, but that happened before I was born so I don’t know that anything can be done about it now. And since I’m not an Israeli, and since the Israelis haven’t sought my opinion on the matter, I don’t offer one. Go find an Israeli to argue with about that one. (Assuming that you can actually bring yourself to offer an argument to anyone.)

But even so, did you miss the part where I mentioned “the hand-wringing on the part of many Americans for the land we ‘stole’ from the American Indian or from Mexico”? You surely must have. Why would you mention it if you caught on that I mentioned it?

And yes, Q, it is different. First, the U. S. didn’t take the land from Mexico. The land was, as I mentioned above, purchased. As I explained in a posting just this past spring:

“[W]e purchased that land for a total of 25$ million dollars in two land deals (i.e., [1] The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo which concluded a war that [Mexico] lost, so that we could just have taken the land instead of shelling out $15 million; and [2] The Gadsden Purchase which cost us $10 million). In todays dollars that amount would be about $554,457,077.76—almost twice Mexico’s 2005 public debt (which I have calculated to be about somewhere in the neighborhood of $420 million dollars; but I’m willing to stand corrected). By the way, no one is certain exactly what [Mexico’s] politicians did with the money we paid them.”

Obviously, the issue remains contentious, Q, but it doesn’t involve the sort of taking that the article mentions Muslims being involved in. (Besides, have you ever asked yourself how Mexico got that land in the first place? I suspect not.)

Secondly, there is still that hand-wringing I mentioned—some of which I’ve done myself. I have ancestors, Q, who lived in what was once Mexico and is now South Texas (specifically, the Harlingen area). This is not an impersonal matter for me. But I have never heard my father or grandfather complain about being Americans. I have never, ever, heard any of my relatives complain about being Americans rather than Mexicans. In fact—irony of ironies—the only ‘Solís’ I ever heard express any desire to have been a Mexican rather than an American is the Solís who writes this blog. That’s right: me. So let me respectfully say “You don’t know what you’re talking about.” (Not that I’m surprised.)

But getting back to the hand-wringing. Whatever you think about the results of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and The Gadsden Purchase, we have at least had our moments of national hand-wringing over the matter. The Muslims who took the Christian middle east from the Christians have not.

It remains the case that, as the article argues, what the Muslims take is legitimately theirs, but what is taken from them is ‘stolen’. You offer no argument against the position. But then again, you never really offer any arguments at all. Why start now I guess.

And so to answer your questions in turn:

No. I’m not full of it. I have a pretty good idea what I’m talking about. Unlike you, I suppose. And no, I’m not ‘insecure’, ‘short sighted’, or ‘filled with blind hate’. I reject your tacit assertion that one must be one or all of those things in order to be involved in an argument—on any matter. Given that you are ‘arguing’ with me, then (applying your own ‘logic’) you must be ‘insecure’, ‘short sighted’, or ‘filled with blind hate’ yourself. (Of course, it is consistent with your typical, ad hominem arguments.)

As for my being ‘sanctimoneous’ [sic]. Assuming that by ‘sanctimonious’ you mean ‘having a false piety characterized by hypocrisy’ then, given the foregoing distinction between the U. S. ‘takings’ and the Muslim takings, together with the fact that I do not assert that there was absolutely no wrong-doing on the part of the U. S., I’m saying, “No. Not sanctimonious.” You know very well that my posting involved nothing like an assertion, whether implicit or explicit, that U.S. takings are inarguably right, while Muslim takings are inarguably wrong.

I can see how I might have been open to being called sanctimonious if I had claimed that any and all U.S. territory seizures were right and, at the same time, that and all Muslims seizures were not. But I didn’t. In fact, you arrogant snob, it is precisely the Muslims who are sanctimonious. That was the argument of the article to which I linked: It is Muslims, not this humble American blogger, who assert the legitimacy of their land seizures while denying the legitmacy of any retaking of territory they seized!

Five words come to mind to describe your comments: amusing, typical, ad hominem, irrational (in the sense of presenting no arguments, no logical rejoinder).

Thanks again for visiting. It’s always a pleasure hearing from you.