Why doesn't God reveal Himself clearly so we can all be saved? Is God incompetent?

At the always interesting Thinking Christian blog, Tom Gilson does a quick review of part of a new book by the alarmingly short-sighted John Loftus.  Personally, I don’t like to give the aforementioned Mr. Loftus any recognition on this blog because he is remarkably uninformed about Christian thought even by atheist standards. (For the remainder of this post, I will treat him like Lord Voldemort in Harry Potter by referencing him as “he-who-shall-not-be-named” in this post, I don't do so because I am afraid of him or his arguments, but only because he tends to ensnare poor agnostics in his web of deceit and should not be given a further platform from which to be heard.) But since Gilson raises his new book in the Thinking Christian blogpost, I have little choice but to mention his name at least at the outset.

In his post, Gilson responds to an argument advanced by he-who-shall-not-be-named in his latest book (which he uncharacteristically sent as a promotional copy to Gilson – something that he wouldn’t do for me when he learned that I would attack the arguments in his first book). The argument advanced is that God is incompetent because “God, if he exists, failed to effectively communicate his will. He failed to provide the sufficient evidence we need to believe.” Gilson, as usual, puts that argument in the trash heap rather quickly. And he does so by correctly pointing to the free will defense. As Gilson points out:
For there is a very long and strong tradition of teaching, both in Christian theology and apologetics, that God created humans to be able freely to love and follow him. Such freedom necessitates the possibility of choosing otherwise.
Gilson later adds:
[He-who-shall-not-be-named] wants a God who would coerce all of us by the irresistible power of deity into believing in him, while leaving us free to make our own choice whether to like God or not. Either that or else he wants a God who would force us both to know and to love him. So much for being human.
I am writing this post to add one more thought to what Gilson has already so ably written. The thought is this: Even if God discloses Himself to doubters like he-who-shall-not-be-named in all of God’s glory, those who have freewill are not forced to accept Him for who He is. In other words, even if God were to provide full evidence that He exists by absolutely revealing Himself to every man, woman and child on Earth, it does not mean that every man, woman and child on Earth would follow him. I believe that this is the case for two reasons.

Mankind's unending capacity to deny the obvious

First, mankind has an extraordinary ability to deny the obvious. While I know that fiction is fiction, I believe that novels and stories can reveal a lot about the human condition. Thus, when I speak about people denying the obvious, I think of Charles Dickens’ great, short classic, A Christmas Carol. The story is so familiar it hardly seems necessary to detail the plot, so I will simply note that in one scene in the first chapter, the miserly Ebenezer Scrooge is confronted by the ghost of his ex-partner, Jacob Marley. At first, Scrooge is terrified, but then he begins to reject that he is being visited by a spirit from the dead. Marley and Scrooge then engage in this bit of repartee:
“You don't believe in me," observed the Ghost.

“I don't," said Scrooge.

“What evidence would you have of my reality beyond that of your senses?"

“I don't know," said Scrooge.

“Why do you doubt your senses?"

“Because,'' said Scrooge, “a little thing affects them. A slight disorder of the stomach makes them cheats. You may be an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an underdone potato. There's more of gravy than of grave about you, whatever you are!''
Now, I am not suggesting that skepticism isn’t appropriate, but for some people (like he-who-shall-not-be-named) skepticism has become an end and not the means to an end. It is to the point where an Angel could appear at the foot of his bed, blow a trumpet to announce that God was about to enter the scene causing all of the windows in the room to shatter, and he-who-shall-not-be-named would still doubt what he is seeing. In fact, he wouldn’t just doubt what he witnessed with this own eyes, he would treat the Angel's appearance like a magician’s trick that needs to be solved. Skepticism as a means is replaced by skepticism as an end.

God's full revelation wouldn't change anything for the unbeliever

Second, the Bible already shows that simply seeing God face to face does not prevent someone from falling into sin. The most readily known example is Adam and Eve in Genesis 3. They walked with God in the garden as you and I might do with a friend, yet they were deceived by the devil (another being who should also be called he-who-shall-not-be-named) into sinning against God. They had come to know God, but due to their desire to be “in charge of their own lives” (effectively to be their own gods – a fault we continue to share these many millennia later), they chose to turn away from the one who had revealed Himself.

He-who-shall-not-be-named may argue that God had not revealed himself “in all of his glory” to Adam and Eve, and possibly cite Exodus 33:22 for the proposition that no one can see God’s face and live. To that point, I respond by pointing to Old Scratch – the aforementioned devil – who demonstrates that one can see God in his full glory and still not love Him or be accepting of His Kingdom. Satan definitely saw God in all of His glory while Satan was one of God’s angels in heaven. But seeing God in all his glory was not enough to Satan. He loved himself more than God, and as a result he fell from high heaven. And he wasn’t alone – he took a third of the heavenly hosts with him. (See, e.g., How Did Lucifer Fall and Become Satan? by Ron Rhodes)

Does he-who-shall-not-be-named have a high opinion of himself? Unfortunately, he is like many atheists who believe themselves to be smarter than the rest of us (which is demonstrated easily by their efforts to name themselves “Brights”).  Pride, after all, was the cause of the fall of Satan. The desire to have things their own way was the cause of the fall of Adam and Eve. This is the reason that God wants us to love him and not just believe in Him. Even the demons believe, but they perish (James 2:19). It is only those that love Him and accept His gifts who receive salvation. Those that love themselves more than God will spend eternity with themselves rather than with God – that is a natural consequence when self-love is elevated over love of God, and that self-love doesn’t happen because God has not revealed himself fully enough, but because the skeptic foolishly loves himself too much.

No, God has not revealed Himself too little. Billions of people throughout history have responded to the call of the Gospel and recognized that loving God is far better than loving one’s-self based upon the evidence we have been given. The evidence is more than sufficient to any who is truly seeking God rather than seeking to elevate themselves.

Comments

Don McIntosh said…
"Skepticism as a means is replaced by skepticism as an end."

That sums it up nicely.

Great points all around, really. Thanks BK.
Joe Hinman said…
good points my friend. You know God would not have to appear in anything like his full glory to totally over whelm us. But yes we can all fall from grace. Like Moses we can still believe and want to follow God and still re be temporarily rebelling when we give in to anger. I do that a lot especially on message boards. I know all about that one,
im-skeptical said…
I missed the part where either you or Gilson provides a cogent answer to the point raised by Loftus. In fact, you make the case that God doesn't need to remain hidden. I agree. See my comments, here. But most of all, I love your assertion that Loftus in "remarkably uninformed". I think Loftus knows more about Christianity than you ever will. In fact that's precisely why he rejects it.
BK said…
Ah... you're just saying that because you're equally uninformed. And you obviously have difficultly grasping concepts or you would see that both Gilson and I answered the question. But that's okay. We understand it's just part of who you are.
im-skeptical said…
So you agree with Gilson that Loftus "wants a God who would coerce all of us by the irresistible power of deity into believing in him"? Or is it your contention that "God's full revelation wouldn't change anything for the unbeliever"? I think your point is rather muddled by walking on both sides of the aisle.
BK said…
I agree that Loftus "wants a God who would coerce all of us by the irresistible power of deity into believing in him." I also believe that God's full revelation wouldn't change anything for the unbeliever, and that means the person who chooses not to believe. That isn't walking on both sides of the aisle, it is making distinctions that you apparently aren't seeing.
im-skeptical said…
First of all, that isn't what Loftus is calling for. He's saying we should be allowed to exercise our free choice in making an informed decision. This is in keeping with your statement "the Bible already shows that simply seeing God face to face does not prevent someone from falling into sin." So it would be counter-productive for God to remain hidden. And you contradict yourself by saying that God's full revelation would amount to coercion. The two statements you just agreed to can't both be true. Either God's revealing himself would be coercion to believe, or it wouldn't. Your two opposing statements don't make any sense to a rational person.
BK said…
First, that is exactly what he is calling for even if he doesn't use those words. As I note at the end of my post, billions of people have seen that the evidence is sufficient to make a choice for God. Thus, there is already sufficient information for people to exercise an "informed decision." But the evidence that has satisfied billions is insufficient to satisfy him. He wants it to be SOOOOO much evidence that that people have no choice but to respond affirmatively (if God exists). So, yes he does want God to coerce belief.

The point of God seeing people face-to-face and not believing goes to the issue (as I pointed out clearly in my post) to our ability to deny the obvious. Even if God were to reveal himself more, people who are more in love with themselves than with God would still deny him. So, what level of proof is needed? There is sufficient proof to accept Him already, and more overwhelming proof would not convince those who are set on denying.

You say, "And you contradict yourself by saying that God's full revelation would amount to coercion." But I didn't say that. Read everything I wrote again, you will see that I never said that. So, if the statement doesn't make sense to you as an allegedly rational person, it is probably because I didn't say it, and you are projecting.
im-skeptical said…
You are so immersed in faith (that is, believing with out evidence) that you discount the value of real evidence altogether. You insist that there is plenty of evidence, but the only kind of "evidence" that you will allow is the kind that isn't actually evident. It is just faith, and nothing more. You castigate skeptics for wanting something they can actually see (and it certainly doesn't have to be a face-to-face meeting, as you claim - Loftus certainly never said that). The kind of "evidence" that you insist is unreasonable is anything that would be scientifically detectable. You are furious with skeptics who want to see anything that falls into the "empirical" category, because you know damn well there is no such evidence, and there never will be. So you exaggerate their reasonable request into something unreasonable - the demand for a face-to-face meeting with God.
BK said…
Interesting. We started off this conversation with you taking exception that I said Loftus is remarkably uninformed, with you claiming he is more informed than we (the CADRE)/I am. But then you say that faith is "believing without evidence," throwing away whatever credibility you had.

Your efforts to reduce evidence to "empirical" evidence is both short-sighted and an equivocation. It is short-sighted because it limits the field of acceptable evidence to only those things that you can weigh or measure. It is an equivocation because there is evidence that can be known by sense experience but you refuse to recognize it, e.g., the changed lives of people who have come to know God.

No, I am not furious with skeptics because they want to have some tangible evidence. I prefer something tangible to the intangible myself. But I am furious with skeptics like Loftus who argue that because God has not given them what they want as far as evidence then God doesn't exist. And I am not furious with him for believing it, but because he is falsely spreading lies based upon false premises.

I am not exaggerating the "reasonable request" into something unreasonable. I use the face-to-face meeting only to illustrate that even if God were to do that for skeptics, that still wouldn't be enough - hence, the contention that Loftus really will only be satisfied if God coerces belief. But what exactly would be enough? What short of a face-to-face encounter would satisfy you? Proof that God designed the universe? How would he have done it any more clearly than he already has? Proof that He exists by coming down to dwell among us for a time? He did that, too. The problem is that everything that God has done is denied by people who don't want to believe in Him, and you are a product of that doubt.

More to say, but dinner's ready. Have a good night.
JBsptfn said…
Just checked out Skeppy's blog post he linked to. I especially like the end (lol):

If someone like Loftus doesn't believe, it's because he is conceited. That's what BK's argument has come to. He can't offer any offer a logical argument, so he reverts to the irrational, emotionally based assertion that “he-who-shall-not-be-named” is simply placing himself above God by being skeptical. Evidence be damned.

Not only is BK reacting in an emotional way to Loftus and failing to respond to the intellectual content of his argument, but he is actually arguing against intellect. He is demanding that we set aside our intellect, and just believe. If you just believe, then you'll have all the evidence you need. To a religionist, faith is what constitutes evidence. It isn't things that we can detect with our senses. As the bible says, "Faith is the evidence of things unseen." And as the church has known for ages, intellect is the enemy of faith. They all know it, and that's the real reason they hate people like Loftus. I just wish these religionists would be honest enough to come out and admit it.


1. Loftus usually doesn't have intellectual content in his arguments.

2. Intellect is the enemy of faith? You sure are good at finding these hum-dingers, aren't you?
im-skeptical said…
But then you say that faith is "believing without evidence," throwing away whatever credibility you had.
- Yes, that's what I say. It's based on the things you say. Of course, I am well aware that Christians claim, and desperately want to believe, their faith is rational. But that is nothing more than lip service. When it comes down to it, what is the evidence they cite? "Proof that God designed the universe? How would he have done it any more clearly than he already has?" It certainly could be more clear. This is why science doesn't draw the same conclusion you do. What you consider proof of design is what naturalists see as accidental. "Proof that He exists by coming down to dwell among us for a time? He did that, too." So say your myths. But as for evidence? What you have is faith. What we want is more than that.

Your efforts to reduce evidence to "empirical" evidence is both short-sighted and an equivocation
- No. Evidence of the senses is a legitimate reason for belief. Your disdain for such evidence is proof that you don't have any. We all know that if genuine empirical evidence that would justify belief in God existed, you Christians would happily cite it as the reason for your belief, and you wouldn't be reduced to complaining that atheists don't accept the same non-evidence that you must rely on because that's all you have. Furthermore, if such evidence existed, then the rest of us would ALSO have reason to believe.

I am not exaggerating the "reasonable request" into something unreasonable. I use the face-to-face meeting only to illustrate that even if God were to do that for skeptics, that still wouldn't be enough - hence, the contention that Loftus really will only be satisfied if God coerces belief.
- Actually, you are exaggerating. None of us demands to see anything like what you have suggested. All we want is evidence. The one and only reason we don't believe what you do is precisely this: the utter lack of objective, empirical evidence.

Joe Hinman said…
-skeptical said...
But then you say that faith is "believing without evidence," throwing away whatever credibility you had.

- Yes, that's what I say. It's based on the things you say. Of course, I am well aware that Christians claim, and desperately want to believe, their faith is rational. But that is nothing more than lip service. When it comes down to it, what is the evidence they cite? "Proof that God designed the universe? How would he have done it any more clearly than he already has?" It certainly could be more clear. This is why science doesn't draw the same conclusion you do. What you consider proof of design is what naturalists see as accidental. "Proof that He exists by coming down to dwell among us for a time? He did that, too." So say your myths. But as for evidence? What you have is faith. What we want is more than that.

you have no more understanding of what real evidence would be than a child in early grade school, you are just regurgitating what the atheist truth regime has brain washed you to think.

J.B.: "Your efforts to reduce evidence to "empirical" evidence is both short-sighted and an equivocation"


- No. Evidence of the senses is a legitimate reason for belief. Your disdain for such evidence is proof that you don't have any.

dependence of the senses is legitimate, I've seen plenty of atheists say they would not believe their own senses if they contradict "science." So they refuse to believe miracles because even their senses are suspect when they point to God. That's because you don't use reason or evidence you are repeating the brain washing, all truth recedes into the nether world before the great atheist truth regime; hatred for religion is all there is to reality in the ahtiestworld,"science" is just your code word for atheistspeak.

proof: you cannot accept miracle claims at face value even when they use empirical evidence such as medical diagnostics such as xrays. when such evidence is presented it is sucked into the vacuum of "there is no such evidence therefore this can't be realevidence."



We all know that if genuine empirical evidence that would justify belief in God existed, you Christians would happily cite it as the reason for your belief,


the finding of the Lourdes medical committee, come on now all together now:this can't be real evidence because it';s never been accepted before,"


and you wouldn't be reduced to complaining that atheists don't accept the same non-evidence that you must rely on because that's all you have. Furthermore, if such evidence existed, then the rest of us would ALSO have reason to believe.

200 studies from peer reviewed psychology journals is astounding evidence, you can't allow that to stand you must close it down with all costs!

you employ all the phony knowledge of science you can muster,so you mock and ridicule and refuse to read the articles and muddle the issues and so on with bull shit for 85 posts in an effect to turn people off from looking at the evidence; of course never never never read the book because must discredited that all costs. then continue your self righteous bull hist that you are sure pure in your love of science you are being true to reason which you do not understand. In reality you merely refuse to accept the possibility of any evidence that doesn't back the atheist truth regime.


Joe Hinman said…
I am not exaggerating the "reasonable request" into something unreasonable. I use the face-to-face meeting only to illustrate that even if God were to do that for skeptics, that still wouldn't be enough - hence, the contention that Loftus really will only be satisfied if God coerces belief.

yes you are. it's totally unreasonable to demand empirical evidence for something that is not given in sense data. you can't give empirical evidence for the basic staples of the atheist regime; you have no evidence for a musltiverse that's your only answer to fine tuning and you can't provide it, that's just one example there many others. you will continue to harp on the bull shit demand for empirical evidence of God despite the fact that God is not given in sense data, thus can't be the subject of reciprocal evidence.

Likewise you cannot solve the dilemma of physical laws vs descriptive scheme, but you will bull shit back and forth between descriptive and prescriptive spending upon which you need to counter religious arguments.



- Actually, you are exaggerating. None of us demands to see anything like what you have suggested. All we want is evidence. The one and only reason we don't believe what you do is precisely this: the utter lack of objective, empirical evidence.

no 200 studies in peer reviewed journals is evidence, dime tuning is evidence, cosmology is evidence you don't want evidence. Lourdes medical committee findings are evidence, you don't want it, you refuse the very concept, you can never accept even the possibility of it/

you deny the very possibility of scientific study of experiences. you have declared eh 200 studies false without reading any. your excuse is always this can't be scientific because scinec can't study experiences, science must deny experiences always.

Anonymous said…
BK: Second, the Bible already shows that simply seeing God face to face does not prevent someone from falling into sin.

Sure. If you assume from the start the Bible is right about everything, anyway. And if you do that, well, Christianity is trivial to prove.

The problem is that most peopke reject the Christian Bible as the ultimate authority. So the question is: Are you merely preaching to the choir? Or do you have anything worthwhile to say to non-Christians?

BK: The most readily known example is Adam and Eve in Genesis 3.

A story many Christians consider to be merely myth, let alone atheists.

Further, idf we accept the story as true, then Adam and Eve did wrong before they understood the difference between right and wrong. It was only by committing a sin in the first place that they became capable of understanding what is a sin!

BK: To that point, I respond by pointing to Old Scratch – the aforementioned devil – who demonstrates that one can see God in his full glory and still not love Him or be accepting of His Kingdom. Satan definitely saw God in all of His glory while Satan was one of God’s angels in heaven. But seeing God in all his glory was not enough to Satan. He loved himself more than God, and as a result he fell from high heaven. And he wasn’t alone – he took a third of the heavenly hosts with him. (See, e.g., How Did Lucifer Fall and Become Satan? by Ron Rhodes)

Wow, now you are citing as fact events that even the Bible does not support. The supposed fall of Lucifer was about a Babylonian king, and there is nothing in the Bible about a third of angels rebelling with Satan. It is just something Christianity has made up.

BK: Unfortunately, he is like many atheists who believe themselves to be smarter than the rest of us (which is demonstrated easily by their efforts to name themselves “Brights”).

Give us reason to think you are as smart as us then. Go look up this claim about a third of angels for yourself, instead of mindlessly believing what your elders tell you to believe.

BK: Pride, after all, was the cause of the fall of Satan.

Or so you have been told to believe.

If you want non-Christians to think you are clever, see if you can devise an argument that does not rest of the assumption that the Bible is true.

Pix
BK said…
imskeptical - Okay, I said that your assertion that faith is "belief without evidence" was throwing away any credibility you have. You have chosen to double-down on that position. Effectively, you have taken your stand on that ground. It is like you have decided to stand on a street corner holding up a sign that says faith is "belief without evidence." I will leave it to those who see you on that street corner to decide if your sign should be translated, "I am so insightful that I know that Christians believe without evidence," or whether those who see your sign will decide (as I have) that "this person is so ignorant of what constitutes evidence that he is only worthy of pity."

This ends our conversation.
BK said…
Pix - Let's review: Loftus made an argument that God (being the God of Christianity, aka the God of the Bible) must be incompetent because he hasn't given everyone enough evidence for believing. Gilson responds (appropriately) using the Bible because, as His word, it is the most concrete evidence for what God actually thinks. Now, you can disagree with that, but if you are attacking the God of the Bible, than it is appropriate to use the Bible to respond.) I add my two cents again using the Bible. You then make the claim that, "If you assume from the start the Bible is right about everything, anyway. And if you do that, well, Christianity is trivial to prove." So, are you saying that when someone goes after the Christian God it is wrong to use the Bible to respond? That's a pretty ridiculous claim.

I am not, by this post, trying to prove God exists. I am responding to an attack on God as He is portrayed and understood as the result of the Bible. Thus, your assertions that I need to prove my point without using the Bible is absurd. If I post something trying to prove the existence of the God (as I have in the past), then if my argument is primarily based on the Bible you will have a point. But as it is, your comment is completely unresponsive to what we are discussing. So, I will not respond in this comment chain to your challenges.

Have a good day.
Joe Hinman said…
Px it's not important to me to defend the 1/3 of angels falling thing, I have heard that all my life and goes way back. I looked it up here is a page where someone explains how they draw that conclusion. I'm not endorsing it, if you want to know where they get it:


HERE


Joe Hinman said…
If you want non-Christians to think you are clever, see if you can devise an argument that does not rest of the assumption that the Bible is true.


that's irrational, said non Christians need to grow some brains, we do not have to prove our beliefs are true every time we talk about them. Of course BK was assuming the the truth of his world view why shouldn't he? One does you know. (I sound like a P.G. Woodhouse character).O I say Seeves,one does you know.

Anyway he wasn't making a defense but an explanation.
im-skeptical said…
BK,

You said that Loftus is "remarkably uninformed". But he has studied Christianity (from the inside) more intensively than practically any Christian you can name, and that includes yourself, I think.

You said that he demands the kind of evidence that would amount to coercion to believe (as in a face-to-face meeting with God), but that is totally untrue, and only goes to show that you really don't understand what his position is. Nor do you understand why any reasonable atheist doesn't believe.

It all comes down to evidence. you say you have plenty of it, and we say you don't. This is a point of disagreement over the question of what constitutes real evidence.

I find it amusing that you feel you can say whatever you please about atheists, and make ridiculous claims about them, as well as all your ad hominem attacks, but if I say you don't have evidence, that's crossing the line.
BK said…
I said, "This ends our conversation." We're done. You have taken a foolish position, and I see no reason to run my head against the wall.
J. P Holding said…
Loftus was battered into a jelly on TWeb for years before he ran off to publish his books to intellectual babies like skeppie here. Keep in mind that Loftus was all about this "the Bible isn't clear" whine, but for some reason, he had problems obeying, "THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY." What's unclear about that? The "thou" maybe?

Yeah he's brilliant all right. As shiny as a mudslide. Mr. Fake-O Blog.
im-skeptical said…
you have no more understanding of what real evidence would be than a child in early grade school, you are just regurgitating what the atheist truth regime has brain washed you to think.
- On the contrary, if you think your "200 studies" constitute evidence for God, then you don't have a clue waht evidence is.

I've seen plenty of atheists say they would not believe their own senses if they contradict "science." So they refuse to believe miracles because even their senses are suspect when they point to God. That's because you don't use reason or evidence you are repeating the brain washing ...
- This is where your scientific ignorance really shines through. We know that out senses are not fully reliable. we know there are illusions, and other reasons to be skeptical of what we see. We also know that nature displays pattern of behavior, and in all of human experience, those patterns are NEVEER violated. So when you tell me of a miraculous event, I am fully justified in being skeptical. You can froth at the mouth and complain that I am blind to the truth, and tell me how stupid and brainwashed I am. But you can't ever show me one of these things. Not once, not ever.

proof: you cannot accept miracle claims at face value even when they use empirical evidence such as medical diagnostics such as xrays. ... the finding of the Lourdes medical committee
- Why should I believe what the church (or their appointed representatives) say? they can show me a million pictures of someone who doesn't have some disease, but they can't prove that the person was cured by God. If you believe that, you are the gullible one.

200 studies from peer reviewed psychology journals ...
- We've gone over this before. Those studies do not show what you think they do. They do not demonstrate ANY causal connection between God and the behavioral outcomes of the subject. All that is just faulty, pseudo-scientific reasoning on your part.

yes you are. ...
- You don't even know who you are responding to. Hint: it wasn't me.

Likewise you cannot solve the dilemma of physical laws vs descriptive scheme
- This is getting tiresome. You learned some fact about science in your "history of ideas" course, and now you think you are a genius who understands science better than those of us who actually studied science. As I said, you don't know squat about science. and I'm still waiting on the answer about Boyle's Law. This is freshman-level stuff.

Joe Hinman said…
m-skeptical said...

Me:you have no more understanding of what real evidence would be than a child in early grade school, you are just regurgitating what the atheist truth regime has brain washed you to think.

Skepie- On the contrary, if you think your "200 studies" constitute evidence for God, then you don't have a clue waht evidence is.

How many ties do you need to read stuff before you start focusing on what it means? The studies are supporting evidence for the warrant, there are three different arguments they function somewhat differently in each, you have never been willing to answer what I say about it.

Me:I've seen plenty of atheists say they would not believe their own senses if they contradict "science." So they refuse to believe miracles because even their senses are suspect when they point to God. That's because you don't use reason or evidence you are repeating the brain washing ...


Skep- This is where your scientific ignorance really shines through. We know that out senses are not fully reliable. we know there are illusions, and other reasons to be skeptical of what we see.

see you just can't address the arguments that I make, that in no way answers any of the three arguments. None of them turn on the idea that the perceptions are actuate portraits of God. Furthermore I say in the book not to base doctrinaire on them.

Moreover you have never answered the fact that they conform to the the we use to determine the validity of experiences. That is epistemology,that trumps science, your scinece is crap compared to epistemology,


Joe Hinman said…
skep:We also know that nature displays pattern of behavior, and in all of human experience, those patterns are NEVER violated. So when you tell me of a miraculous event, I am fully justified in being skeptical.

Ignorance of the basics,read Popper what you just said is totally blown away by Popper. Science does not assume the patterns are never violated, they have no right to that assumption because to make good on it you would have to observe all patterns in their integrity forever. You don't understand science you are igornat of Popper,


You can froth at the mouth and complain that I am blind to the truth, and tell me how stupid and brainwashed I am. But you can't ever show me one of these things. Not once, not ever.

you are blind to Popper and so your sickness understanding is unsophisticated.

proof: you cannot accept miracle claims at face value even when they use empirical evidence such as medical diagnostics such as xrays. ... the finding of the Lourdes medical committee

you can't dismiss them because they are miracles claims either, Putting up controls for study and obtaining all medical evidence and making diagnostic observation is not accepting on face value.

- Why should I believe what the church (or their appointed representatives) say? they can show me a million pictures of someone who doesn't have some disease, but they can't prove that the person was cured by God. If you believe that, you are the gullible one.

the medical evidence proves the person had the problem then new evidence from the diagnosis prove they don't, if it can't be accounted for and if prayer is the only new variable then it is logical to assume divine action, you can't accept that because your identity is based upon rejecting God, but you are rejecting reason and fooling yourself into thinking it makes you smnakrt.

200 studies from peer reviewed psychology journals ...
- We've gone over this before. Those studies do not show what you think they do. They do not demonstrate ANY causal connection between God and the behavioral outcomes of the subject.

more of your half baked ignorance of science, no study on any topic ever shows causality. there is no such thing as proving causes. All causes are assumed based upon correlation and a theoretical connection to mechanism,

I put up a piece on the causal link from the studies to arguments, you didn't read it did you? you don't read anything.


All that is just faulty, pseudo-scientific reasoning on your part.

you don't know the basics, go read Popper,



Likewise you cannot solve the dilemma of physical laws vs descriptive scheme

- This is getting tiresome. You learned some fact about science in your "history of ideas" course, and now you think you are a genius who understands science better than those of us who actually studied science. As I said, you don't know squat about science. and I'm still waiting on the answer about Boyle's Law. This is freshman-level stuff.


yes I took a class,one class in history of ideas, you still have not told me where you did your doctoral work? I don't think you even went to gradate school you seem to have no idea what a Ph,D is or how much it takes to get one. I completed all they course works and blew through qualifying exams with flying colors

You don't know the basics you don't even understand the educational process.
Joe Hinman said…
here is the blog peioce from Metacrock's blog dealing with causal links from the studies to my arguments, on the arguments for God from religious experience.

HERE

Cleariofiocation: Let's remember that I don't claim to prove the existence of God but that belief kin God is rationally warranted. It's warranted by the experiences and the studies show that, I don't have to pro e that the experienced are caused by God.I have to prove that there's rational warrant to think they are,That is achieved by the eight tie breakers.The article linked to argues that the process of argument that issue in inference for the warrant is analogous to the process in science that was used to accept the existence of Neutrinos.
im-skeptical said…
I put up a piece on the causal link from the studies to arguments, you didn't read it did you? you don't read anything.

It's all bullshit, Joe. Not peer-reviewed, is it? And why is that? Because it couldn't ever pass any scientific peer review process. Because it isn't science. Name an actual scientist who agrees that your conclusions are scientifically valid. Go ahead. I'll be waiting.

Meanwhile, you asked me a question about Boyle that you thought would stump me, but it turns out you didn't know what he was saying. Because you don't know what you think you do about science. I asked you a very simple question about Boyle's law that any student of science can answer, and you are stumped by it. Because you don't know squat about science.

Yes, I've read some of Popper's work. the difference between you and me is that I understand it.
im-skeptical said…
From Joe's post:

The model is this: phenomena offers a very strong correlation between two observed variables, assumed to be cause and effect, The explanation of the mechanism is the only hypothesis standing after all others are eliminated and it explains the phenomena while fitting into a valid place in a larger accepted theoretical framework. We see this model in the history of the neutrino, I repeat my history of the particle below to show this model at work in actual science.

You ARE claiming a causal linkage (first sentence). And then you claim that your hypothesis is the only one that stands up. So show us the part of your scientific work where you systematically examined and then ruled out all possible naturalistic explanation for the behavior observed in those studies. CASE CLOSED. you didn't do any of that.

Then you try to tell us that because real scientists follow a scientific model (the story of the neutrino) your work must be valid,, too. Bullshit.
Joe Hinman said…
I put up a piece on the causal link from the studies to arguments, you didn't read it did you? you don't read anything.

It's all bullshit, Joe. Not peer-reviewed, is it? And why is that? Because it couldn't ever pass any scientific peer review process. Because it isn't science. Name an actual scientist who agrees that your conclusions are scientifically valid. Go ahead. I'll be waiting.


>>>>ahahahahhahahhahhhahahahahhahahhahhhahahahahhahahhahhh not peer revikowed! ahahahahhahahhahhhahahahahhahahhahhhahahahahhahahhahhhahahahahhahahhahhh not peer revikowed! ahahahahhahahhahhh!!!

as opposed to all those peer received blog pieces he puts on his bog! how childish! who am I going to get peer review my bog pieces? It's my blog stupid, who is going to peer review it? It's not published in a journal. I'm not publishing a journal, Why does it need peer review? are yiu not capable of evaluating it? where is your peer review?

Meanwhile, you asked me a question about Boyle that you thought would stump me, but it turns out you didn't know what he was saying. Because you don't know what you think you do about science. I asked you a very simple question about Boyle's law that any student of science can answer, and you are stumped by it. Because you don't know squat about science.


you don't know anything about Boyle his law., your imagined knowledge about sciences from an undergraduate perspective that's all it is. you do not know anything beyond the undergraduate level. My question to you invoked his model for mechanical view of the universe, you don't know what that means or what it's contrasted to. It's a lot more important than some fact about his law. Boyle's understanding of the Spring in the air is a much more important key to his understanding of the thing that separated him from Hobbes than anything about his law.


You think that understanding scientific facts and laws is the issue in dealing with philosophy of science that is a totally rookie mistake, it shows total lack of understudying, your Strictly undergrad.


skep: Yes, I've read some of Popper's work. the difference between you and me is that I understand it.


Obviously you don't because your statement contracts one of the most basic points he ever made. You Know the name, you haven't understand it maybe you looked at ht words but don't know what they mean,
Joe Hinman said…
I think Skepioe's readimg comprehensiomn is less than college undergradjatekvhe says:

"You ARE claiming a causal linkage (first sentence). And then you claim that your hypothesis is the only one that stands up. So show us the part of your scientific work where you systematically examined and then ruled out all possible naturalistic explanation for the behavior observed in those studies. CASE CLOSED. you didn't do any of that."

There's the first paragraph or most of it, note the bit in bold.

In the comment section of Monday's post (2/6/17) our Friend "Skepie" says "... then there's your 200 studies. You draw inferences from these that are not scientifically justified. There is no causal linkage demonstrated between God and the observed evidence seen in these studies." This is a real strong indication that he's not paying attention. First, he really needs to read Hume because no demonstration of causal link involves actually observing causality at work. All we can observe are effects, we assume the casual nature. The assumption of cause is based upon tight correlation and the assumptive of mechanism which basically involves a correlation there as well.

Tnat flatlet contradicts what he said,i am clearly not aqruging that I can prove a cause.
Joe Hinman said…
Now he demonstrates that he doesn't know how analogies work,I try to show how scientific reasoning about causality is done and show that my reasoning about the studies is very analogous and thus scientific in a general way. The specific studies themselves are scientific because they were done by social scientists but my extrapolation to my argumentative is not unscientific.

He says: 'Then you try to tell us that because real scientists follow a scientific model (the story of the neutrino) your work must be valid,, too. Bullshit."

It is bull shit, because I did not say that,I actually showed by my ideas follow the pattern we see in the issues of the neutrino. I don't just assert because that is scientific mine must be as well, I actually show you why it is the same kind of reasoning. But hey since he can't even figure what I said about cuases how can we expect him to understand more?

btw above he walked right into the thing about prescriptive vs descriptive e he did just Isaid he would do,he switched from one to the other impending upon need,
Jason Pratt said…
Speaking as someone who actually does believe God will eventually save all sinners from sin: I still agree with various points of BK's in the original post! God won't do it (and strictly speaking couldn't do it per contradiction) by forcing people to freely love Him; and belief that God exists isn't the same thing as loyally serving God. Someone can even do what they correctly believe to be God's will from evil intentions and be rightly regarded as a doer of injustice.

Consequently, I don't believe that a more maximal revelation of God by God, will be how God saves everyone (nor that this would remove choice to even believe God exists, much less remove choice whether to loyally serve or rebel against God. I think Bill and I agree on that principle? -- part of your OP seems to agree with it, but another part seems to agree with Tom's idea that a full revelation would remove the choice to even believe.) And I actually do believe God will act in that maximal way someday! But I notice that on one prevalent interpretation of what will happen (an interpretation which I accept in principle though with some agnosticism about details), while this will lead to a massive and massively successful evangelism, it also will apparently lead (after centuries of peace) to the worst rebellion ever in human history.

Nor am I particularly surprised about that: humanity has trouble already learning that it's wrong to worship the mere power to cause effects, and a maximal revelation would have a tendency to bring out that problem to a proportionately maximal extent. I don't have any problem with the idea that we'll have to learn that we shouldn't insist on God being a tyrant, even a benevolent one. But as a practical matter I can understand why as a group we won't be able to learn that lesson until we're living in that experience.

Then again, in order to learn as a group that we shouldn't try to live apart from God, we'll have to mess things up so badly that no one could have even a grudging doubt that maaaaaybbeeee we could have made it without God after all. That doesn't solve the somewhat opposite problem of treating the sheer power to cause effects as the most important importance in reality, however: both lessons have to be learned. It makes sense to me that those lessons would have to be learned in that sequence, too.

(I expect there's also a related issue about God teaching non-human rebels similar lessons, with humans and other creatures suffering from the rebels' tampering meanwhile. A situation that God voluntarily and self-sacrificially suffers with us.)

JRP
im-skeptical said…
as opposed to all those peer received blog pieces he puts on his bog!
- I wasn't talking about your blog, and anybody with half a brain would be able to figure that out.

you don't know anything about Boyle his law., your imagined knowledge about sciences from an undergraduate perspective that's all it is. you do not know anything beyond the undergraduate level. My question to you invoked his model for mechanical view of the universe ...
- I've studied physics that you've never heard of. But a basic understanding of Boyle's law is freshman level. And his book was not about the "spring in the air", nor did it present a "model for mechanical view of the universe". It was about his experiments with compressible gas (air). He developed the basis for a mechanical model that describes the behavior of that - otherwise known as Boyle's law. You obviously don't have a clue about it. Read this.

You think that understanding scientific facts and laws is the issue in dealing with philosophy of science that is a totally rookie mistake, it shows total lack of understudying, your Strictly undergrad.
- Joe, if we're discussing your erroneous use of empirical studies to draw an invalid conclusion (which was the case), Boyle's philosophy has little or nothing to do with it. But you keep diverting. Every time I point out your failure to follow scientific procedure in your own work or your poor logical process, you divert to "You don't understand Popper", or "You don't know what Boyle was saying". That way, you can try to make it sound like I'm the one who doesn't know what he's talking about.

Tnat flatlet contradicts what he said,i am clearly not aqruging that I can prove a cause.
- And I NEVER said anything about "proving" a cause. I specifically used the term "demonstrating as causal link", which went right over your head. So put away your book of quotes from Hume, and listen for a change. Your "research" fails to provide a legitimate scientific basis for drawing the conclusion that you make.

I actually show you why it is the same kind of reasoning.
- In your dreams, perhaps. You did no such thing.
Joe Hinman said…
m-skeptical said...
as opposed to all those peer received blog pieces he puts on his bog!
- I wasn't talking about your blog, and anybody with half a brain would be able to figure that out.

apparently you must this books are peer reviewed, they are not, no one has a peer reviewed book. But the article I wrote about the book was accepted by peer review for a conference but I couldn't go to it because I cam't walk, I'm still bed ridden ,in rehab. You have no peer reviewed work, where is the academic journal you publish in,

I used to publish a journal and I was asked to reefer journal on the same topic as the one I ran,
Joe Hinman said…
You think that understanding scientific facts and laws is the issue in dealing with philosophy of science that is a totally rookie mistake, it shows total lack of understudying, your Strictly undergrad.


- Joe, if we're discussing your erroneous use of empirical studies to draw an invalid conclusion (which was the case), Boyle's philosophy has little or nothing to do with it.

you are not capable of dimming my work, you are not qualified, and not knowledgeable.You are simply not cable of following arguments. I never said Boyle has anything do to with ny book on mystical experience.


But you keep diverting. Every time I point out your failure to follow scientific procedure in your own work or your poor logical process, you divert to "You don't understand Popper", or "You don't know what Boyle was saying". That way, you can try to make it sound like I'm the one who doesn't know what he's talking about.


cute, i know your world view says you must know more than all christians but you are a walking disproof of your own world view. you already proved that you don't understand the basics of Popper with the line about how the patterns are never violation you don't even even understand why do you?

Tnat flatlet contradicts what he said,i am clearly not aqruging that I can prove a cause.
- And I NEVER said anything about "proving" a cause. I specifically used the term "demonstrating as causal link", which went right over your head. So put away your book of quotes from Hume, and listen for a change. Your "research" fails to provide a legitimate scientific basis for drawing the conclusion that you make.


You said something differ in the comment section my MB. before I wrote the piece that was in answer to your stupidity in that comment section.

You do not understand the role the studies play in any arguments, you never get it right. I've explained it several times you say the same misunderstandings as the clowns on CARM who said al kinds of idiocy about it.


I actually show you why it is the same kind of reasoning.

- In your dreams, perhaps. You did no such thing.

you are wrong about everything across the board you are working at an undergraduate level that's all you know,
Joe Hinman said…
The claim that the studies aren't prove a causal link between God and the experience withGod as the cause is a fair question but the answer is obvious.

(1) the noetic aspects are communicate in the experience are about God,

(2) the essence of the experience itself is almost always identified as the presence of God

(3) in a large percentage of the toke the result of the experience pis religious conversion.

(4) mystical experience is the origin of religion its why we are talking abouit God where the idea of God comes from.

While it is true that this does not prove that the experience is really an experience of God's presence it certainly provides peima facie reasom to assert that it is. So at that point we have a reason to assume it vs an equal possibility that it is they result of brain chemistry alone. That is dispelled by the eight tie breakers.


that takes care of argument 1, the co-determinate, in that argument the studies function as a documentation for the competent of what is experience

In argumnet 2 the the argument from universal mystical consciousness. the studies function as documentation that mystical expediences are the same they world over, across faiths and cultures. The argumnet is when this happens in anthropology they assume innate origins, but the tie breakers show that we can't assume any sort of inanimate nature to the experience (religious ideas are cultural), that implies a external reality is experienced.

In argument the studies provide documentation that the exercises fit the criteria of epistemic judgement that means we are warranted i trimmings them.

In each csae these studies provide the link needed to assert cause without having to actually prove God is behind it, That's I argue warrant and not proof,
Anonymous said…
BK: I am not, by this post, trying to prove God exists. I am responding to an attack on God as He is portrayed and understood as the result of the Bible. Thus, your assertions that I need to prove my point without using the Bible is absurd. If I post something trying to prove the existence of the God (as I have in the past), then if my argument is primarily based on the Bible you will have a point. But as it is, your comment is completely unresponsive to what we are discussing. So, I will not respond in this comment chain to your challenges.

Okay, I take your point. And I understand perfectly why you want to duck the challenge; as Joe's link shows, the idea that a third of angels followed Satan is based on a very imaginative interpretation of a prophecy of the future. Odd that Christians mindlessly accept it as fact.

So let us suppose the Bible is true. You cite Adam and Eve as two people who saw God face-to-face and yet still sinned. And yet the Bible states that when they sinned they were incapable of knowing right from wrong. I pointed this out in my last comment; did you not see it? This is like basing the behaviour of adults on what toddlers do. A toddler cannot understand that stealing cookies is morally wrong, so we make allowances for that, and put the cookie jar out of reach. Grown-ups are expected to understand morality, and can be given responsibilities accordingly.

Pix
Joe Hinman said…
Okay, I take your point. And I understand perfectly why you want to duck the challenge; as Joe's link shows, the idea that a third of angels followed Satan is based on a very imaginative interpretation of a prophecy of the future. Odd that Christians mindlessly accept it as fact.

I don't think most Christians know about it, it's not a major thing, I don't think it's a major thing in BK's article. You could take it out and his point is still made.
Joe Hinman said…
So let us suppose the Bible is true. You cite Adam and Eve as two people who saw God face-to-face and yet still sinned. And yet the Bible states that when they sinned they were incapable of knowing right from wrong. I pointed this out in my last comment; did you not see it? This is like basing the behaviour of adults on what toddlers do. A toddler cannot understand that stealing cookies is morally wrong, so we make allowances for that, and put the cookie jar out of reach. Grown-ups are expected to understand morality, and can be given responsibilities accordingly.

first, your comment is a more effective criticism when aimed at those who believe in a literal garden of Eden story.I don't know if That's BK or not, but for those like myself wh don't, its just willing suspension of disbelief. But the sin was he did not warn Eve. It does not say that he did not know, he did it clearly it says God commanded them not to eat, as the older Adam has a responsibility to make sure Eve understood not to eat.


Secondly the buck passing that Adam attempted is also a sin.

Thirdly the story mnakes clear that they knew they sinned because they made clothes out of leaves,God says who told yo you were naked? well implies intuitive knowledge, they knew it,
BK said…
Pix says: "[T]he idea that a third of angels followed Satan is based on a very imaginative interpretation of a prophecy of the future. Odd that Christians mindlessly accept it as fact." - No, not mindlessly. It is a teaching that requires stringing together several verses. I think that its clear that more than Satan fell, but I am not wedded to the 1/3rd number. I used it because it is commonly taught. If you don't believe that number is accurate, I am not going to argue it.

Pix then says: "You cite Adam and Eve as two people who saw God face-to-face and yet still sinned. And yet the Bible states that when they sinned they were incapable of knowing right from wrong." Uh, no it doesn't. That's your strained interpretation of the Scripture. Adam and Eve were adults with the ability to know right from wrong, and they were especially aware that there was one rule that God put on them (Eve even quoted it - even if she added to it), and so they knew they were violating God's law. They knew right from wrong.
im-skeptical said…
But the article I wrote about the book was accepted by peer review for a conference but I couldn't go to it
- I don't think you even know what peer review is. I have published peer-reviewed material, and I didn't have to attend a conference.

You are simply not cable of following arguments. I never said Boyle has anything do to with ny book on mystical experience.
- Then why did you bring it up? I wasn't talking about anything that had to do with Boyle, either.

cute, i know your world view says you must know more than all christians but you are a walking disproof of your own world view. you already proved that you don't understand the basics of Popper with the line about how the patterns are never violation you don't even even understand why do you?
- Wrong, Joe. I know perfectly well the difference between descriptive an prescriptive. You're the one who can't seem to distinguish. Nature behaves the way it does, regardless of any laws we may contrive to describe that behavior. What we observe is that nature NEVER violates those patterns of behavior, your superstitious beliefs about miracles notwithstanding.

You said something differ in the comment section my MB.
- Your failure to understand what I say is your own problem, not mine.

you are wrong about everything across the board. ... bla bla bla
- Do you have any idea how childish you sound?

im-skeptical said…
But the sin was he did not warn Eve. It does not say that he did not know, he did it clearly it says God commanded them not to eat, as the older Adam has a responsibility to make sure Eve understood not to eat.
- Where in the bible does it describe Adam as being responsible for Eve. Many people think that Eve's being first to sin an indication that woman is the lesser human that is responsible for the downfall. This justifies their religious-based misogyny.

the story mnakes clear that they knew they sinned because they made clothes out of leaves,God says who told yo you were naked? well implies intuitive knowledge, they knew it
- The story says that only AFTER they ate the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, they became aware of their nakedness. This is how God knew they ate it (because he's not, like, omniscient or something). Before eating the fruit, they were innocent.
Joe Hinman said…
But the article I wrote about the book was accepted by peer review for a conference but I couldn't go to it



- I don't think you even know what peer review is. I have published peer-reviewed material, and I didn't have to attend a conference.


idiot. are you really that stupid? you really think they would not have a peer review process for conferences? Have you ever been to a conference? do you e en know what they are? I ran a journal dumb ass.I/ll give you the link. you can see my name on it.

You are simply not cable of following arguments. I never said Boyle has anything do to with ny book on mystical experience.


- Then why did you bring it up? I wasn't talking about anything that had to do with Boyle, either.

I brought it to prove that your understanding of what constitutes scientific knowledge is very limited and sophomoric. You don't understand history of science as understanding science.




cute, i know your world view says you must know more than all christians but you are a walking disproof of your own world view. you already proved that you don't understand the basics of Popper with the line about how the patterns are never violation you don't even even understand why do you?

- Wrong, Joe. I know perfectly well the difference between descriptive an prescriptive. You're the one who can't seem to distinguish. Nature behaves the way it does, regardless of any laws we may contrive to describe that behavior. What we observe is that nature NEVER violates those patterns of behavior, your superstitious beliefs about miracles notwithstanding.

You said something differ in the comment section my MB.

- Your failure to understand what I say is your own problem, not mine.

right you are just giving the atheist version alternate facts hu?

you are wrong about everything across the board. ... bla bla bla

- Do you have any idea how childish you sound?

of course I'k imitating you
Joe Hinman said…
m-skeptical said...
But the sin was he did not warn Eve. It does not say that he did not know, he did it clearly it says God commanded them not to eat, as the older Adam has a responsibility to make sure Eve understood not to eat.

- Where in the bible does it describe Adam as being responsible for Eve. Many people think that Eve's being first to sin an indication that woman is the lesser human that is responsible for the downfall. This justifies their religious-based misogyny.

Yes I know they do, That's not where I',m coming from.I am giving the counter view to that which is called "egalitarian." It says even though Eve technically broke the commandment first she did so naively but Adam sinned knowingly because he was there he was watching he knew better then he tried to blame Eve, that is why Paul says"thorough one man sin entered the world (Romans 5).

the story makes clear that they knew they sinned because they made clothes out of leaves,God says who told yo you were naked? well implies intuitive knowledge, they knew it


- The story says that only AFTER they ate the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, they became aware of their nakedness. This is how God knew they ate it (because he's not, like, omniscient or something). Before eating the fruit, they were innocent.

there are two stages to their knowledge, First they know the commando and not to eat, Adam probably understood more about his responsibility than Eve did, they did not know why it was command or what God had in mind but they know don';t eat, After they eat they understand why it was wrong.

don't forget my view is that this is not literal history,it;'s story designed to convey ideas,the logistics of what they knew and when they knew were not as important as getting the messqge.

Joe Hinman said…


Negations: an Interdisciplinary Journal of social criticism
Joe Hinman said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
im-skeptical said…
idiot. are you really that stupid? you really think they would not have a peer review process for conferences? Have you ever been to a conference? do you e en know what they are? I ran a journal dumb ass.I/ll give you the link. you can see my name on it.
- I have submitted several papers. The difference between you and me is that mine are published. And your so-called journal on "social criticism"? It's not a scientific journal, and it's not peer-reviewed. It looks like just another blog page, but without comments.

I brought it [Boyle] to prove that your understanding of what constitutes scientific knowledge is very limited and sophomoric. You don't understand history of science as understanding science.
- And I proved that YOU didn't know what Boyle was talking about. It isn't what you claimed. I even showed you an abstract. He wasn't saying what you seem to think, and certainly not presenting a "model for mechanical view of the universe".

right you are just giving the atheist version alternate facts hu?
- I have remained consistent. You just don't comprehend so much of what I have said.

I am giving the counter view to that which is called "egalitarian." It says even though Eve technically broke the commandment first she did so naively but Adam sinned knowingly because he was there he was watching he knew better
- That view contradicts the biblical-based concept of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Furthermore, it is sexist.
Joe Hinman said…
- I have submitted several papers. The difference between you and me is that mine are published. And your so-called journal on "social criticism"? It's not a scientific journal, and it's not peer-reviewed. It looks like just another blog page, but without comments.

(1) Most academic journals are mot scientific, there are subjects in University than science, such as philosophy, math,literature, geography,language, sociology, anthropology and son on, I am assuming by :"science" you exclude social sciences because you don't reality know science. All academic journals are pre revolved because it's by definition.

(2) In any journal when it says:editorial board": it is telling who the peers are that do the reviews, That;s what they are the referees are the editorial board, this just proves you don't know teh academic process very well,

(3) Negations was no exception, we were peer reviewed we had many professors as referees. We were also indexed which is another requirement for being a real academic journal.
Joe Hinman said…
And I proved that YOU didn't know what Boyle was talking about. It isn't what you claimed. I even showed you an abstract. He wasn't saying what you seem to think, and certainly not presenting a "model for mechanical view of the universe".

you think you proved that because i didn't answer your question,I didn't get it wrong I didn't answer it,that prove I don't know but hey:

you did not answer mine!

that proves you don't know any thing about Boyle doesn't it? by your own logic
Joe Hinman said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe Hinman said…
Skepie I see what you think you think that I had to do a journal in line with what i was studying. No. That's not how most academic journals work. most are ran by students but they are not assigned to run then they just do. We did one in line with our interests not because we were assigned to. I didn't study Marcus either but that's what eh journal was about.

I started the journal while I was still studying Derrida anyway. When I switched to sickness it was already in motion and had at least one issue already.


here was our editorial board, these are referees:

Editorial Board

Alex Argyros - Literary Studies, University of Texas at Dallas
William S. Babcock - Director, Graduate Program in Religious Studies, Southern Methodist University
Charles R. Bombach - History of Ideas, University of Texas at Dallas
David Channell - History of Ideas and - Philosophy of Science, University of Texas at Dallas
William Gibson - Sociology, University of California at Long Beach
Susan Heckman - Dean of Graduate Program in Humanities, University of Texas at Arlington
Geoffrey Hale -
Frederick Hotz - Philosophy, Collin County Community College
Lorraine Kahn - Formerly Visiting Scholar in Film, Institute of Industrial Relations, The University of California at Berkeley
Barry Katz - Formerly Professor of Philosophy, Stanford University
Marcia Landy - Department of English, University of Pittsburgh
Kevin Mattson - Rutgers University
Greg Miller - Communications, San Diego State University
James O'Connor - Professor of Economics, The University of California at Santa Cruz
George Pepper - retired, Jaspers Scholar, Iona College
Jim Perkinson - Historical Theology, University of Detroit
Brian Spitzberg - Communication, San Diego State University
Trudy Struenegle - Kent State University
Theodore Walker - Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University
Victor Worsfold - Ethics, University of Texas at Dallas
im-skeptical said…
Most academic journals are mot scientific
- Who cares? We WERE talking about science. Your own experience of running a non-scientific "journal" (that had a total of 4 issues) is irrelevant. Does your editorial board peer-review poetry?

you think you proved that because i didn't answer your question,I didn't get it wrong I didn't answer it,that prove I don't know but hey: ... you did not answer mine!
- You didn't answer my question because you can't. As for your own view of what Boyle was saying, I think you should go back there and see what I said. You were just plain wrong, and I showed that.

Popular Posts