CADRE Comments

[Introductory note from Jason Pratt: the previous entry in this series of posts can be found here. The first entry can be found here. ] I am "sorry to say" this [i.e. that an intentional fostering of contradiction for purposes of religious piety has happened in many religions--including in Christianity], because contradictions deny reality. A theist who turns to contradictions to generate feelings of awe about God, or (worse) proposes that God and contradictions must necessarily go hand in hand (perhaps because he is working with the requirement of a faith/reason disparity), implicitly denies God's reality. Sceptics just love this! Who can blame them? It plays right into their hands! I am certain some sceptics have become unbelievers precisely because they perceived this problem, and were subsequently told (by otherwise well-meaning theists) that this was the way it had to be. These particular sceptics (in another vicious irony, and no fault to them) learned their lesson...

As noted in Part I of this brief series, The Evolving Nature of Evolution: "Properly Taught" , the American Geophysical Union made the following statement in response to President Bush's comments of three years ago that both sides of the Darwinian Evolution v. Intelligent Design debate ought to be properly taught" so that "people can understand what the debate is about": "Scientific theories, like evolution, relativity and plate tectonics, are based on hypotheses that have survived extensive testing and repeated verification," Spilhaus says. "The President has unfortunately confused the difference between science and belief. It is essential that students understand that a scientific theory is not a belief, hunch, or untested hypothesis." With respect to the statement that "Scientific theories, like evolution, relativity and plate tectonics, are based on hypotheses that have survived extensive testing and repeated verification,...

About three years ago, President George W. Bush had the apparent audacity to suggest that students should be exposed to differing ideas, and it stirred up a firestorm in the editorial pages and on the Internet. Of course, the idea that we should expose children to new ideas would normally not receive a second thought from most people (especially those who are forever crying "censorship" upon the slightest suggestion that some books or other reading material may be inappropriate for children), but Bush had the gall to make such an open-minded suggestion about teaching "intelligent design" in the public schools. Based on the reaction, I suspect that some people would prefer to have grade school children handed back-issues of Penthouse Magazine than allow a hint of dissent from the reigning Darwinian paradigm. I can almost hear it now, "What? Infringe on the Darwinian monopoly in the schools? Allow people to think for even a moment that there is a possibility that...

Introductory note from Jason Pratt: see here for the previous entry; and see here for the first entry of the series. (It explains what I'm doing, and how, and contains the Johannine prologue.) This 'chapter' runs rather long, so I've broken it into two entries. In essence, this is the first dramatic climax of the whole story: it explains how and why some (though not yet all) teachers first seriously began to think that Jesus not only needed close watching but outright stopping--up to and including killing Him, somehow, if that's what it took. (It also synchs together a particular piece of shared Synoptic material with the first important speech in GosJohn, via a GosMatt link that scholars have long noticed has peculiarly Johannine characteristics.) There have been earlier places where keeping previous story elements in mind helped bring extra meaning and clarity to the current incidents; but this is the most important such situation up to now. Watch for Plotnotes...

Introductory note from Jason Pratt: see here for the previous entry; and see here for the first entry of the series. (It explains what I'm doing, and how, and contains the Johannine prologue.) This 'chapter' runs rather long, so I'm breaking it into two entries. The King of the Sabbaths And going out from there (says the Follower, implying from wherever Jesus had raised the daughter of Jairus), Jesus is going into His own country (meaning Nazareth evidently in this case); and His disciples follow Him. Now on the next Sabbath, He begins to teach in the synagogue. And most of the listeners are astonished, saying: "Where has all this come from?? And what is this wisdom being given?? Yet what works of power happen from his hands! Isn't this the artisan, the son of Mary and the brother of James and Joseph and Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters married among us?" [Note: literally 'here (facing) toward us', i.e. at least still living in the distr...

[Introductory note from Jason Pratt: the previous entry in this series of posts can be found here. The first entry can be found here. ] I have explained why I reject a flat presumption of our inability to reach true and useful conclusions about the existence and character of God through reasoning: in essence, I reject the presumption because it involves (one way or another) self-contradiction. I have also explained why I reject much (though not all) of circular Presuppositionalism theories: in essence, I reject some of their claims because they are also self-contradictive. I do recognize some real usefulness in such procedures, (although I do not consider such methods to be the best tools for the goal of my book). But at the same time, I allow such methods have some real usefulness precisely because there are certain (limited) goals of such methods, which are not self-contradictive! I am willing to consider the feasibility of the parts which do not gut themselves; but I reject the pa...

(Hat tip: Chris Tilling over at Chrisendom ) The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts ( CSNTM ) has been working for a while now at a (currently) undisclosed location photographing a trove of NT manuscripts for study. Having returned with a terabyte of data, the Center is preparing its first press release for media dispersion later this week. [Update, Feb 7: turns out it'll be next week sometime. Since it's for "perfectly legitimate reasons" which members of the CSNTM cannot comment on at the moment, my guess is that someone discovered an inaccuracy in the original PR material and wanted to get that fixed. Update, Feb 12: PR team still delaying, though the reason is not "bad at all". May mean they have news about a publication deal being done they want to include.] The release will apparently be titled "Scholars Find Treasure Trove of Early New Testament Manuscripts", but this is not really very accurate according to Dan Wallace (one o...

Introductory note from Jason Pratt: see here for the previous entry; and see here for the first entry of the series. (It explains what I'm doing, and how, and contains the Johannine prologue.) Days of Courage and Turmoil and Peace Now going back to Capernaum again during these days (says the Follower), people hear Jesus has come home. And it happened on one of these days (says the Scholar) that He was teaching; and Pharisees and lawyers were sitting (with Him), having come out of the villages of Galilee, and of Judea, and Jerusalem. And there was power of the Lord for their healing. [Note: notice that it is the Pharisees and lawyers whom Jesus is hoping to 'heal' in this case.] And immediately many (others) were gathered (adds the Follower), so that there absolutely was not any room (in His house), even at the door! And He was speaking the Word to them. Now look! (say the Follower, Disciple and Scholar) Four men are bringing a paralyzed man lying on a cot, seeking to carr...

I was thinking recently about why atheists so often refer to God as an 'unnecessary hypothesis'. Of course I can understand the intellectual appeal of such a rhetorical strategy, as it provides atheism with a rational foundation. My question was more how is it that they are able to use this strategy with such ease and assurance? It occured to me that it stems from a particular way that atheists (and many theists) construe the relationship between naturalism and theism, encapsulated in the title: theism is basically the same as naturalism, EXCEPT there's an extra being called God who intervenes in nature and ensures an afterlife and so on. On this view, God may do some metaphysical 'work' in the form of ensuring that the wrongs in this life will be righted in the next, or serving as the recipient of prayers and the focus of spirituality, but other than that it is assumed that naturalists have access to the same moral and intellectual resources as theists: naturalists...

Introductory note from Jason Pratt: see here for the previous entry; and see here for the first entry of the series. (It explains what I'm doing, and how, and contains the Johannine prologue.) Actions and Consequences Now it occurs (the Disciple and the Scholar and the Follower say), as Jesus is in one of the cities (of Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God and healing)... look! a man full of leprosy! Seeing Jesus, he falls on his face (apparently after having followed Jesus to a house where Jesus was staying), imploring Him: "Sir! If you are willing, you can make me clean!" Moved with compassion, and reaching out His hand, Jesus touches him, saying: "I am willing! Be cleansed!" And the leprosy went straight away from him, at His saying this; and he was made clean. Yet, growling under His breath, Jesus strictly charges the man: "Look here! You may not say anything of this to anyone! Now go, show yourself to the (local) priest, and bring for your cleansin...