CADRE Comments

Apparently, there is a new film out called Bloodline which, once again, asserts the same tired claim of the historically vacuous The Da Vinci Code that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married. The same tired characters are presented and the same result is found -- nothing much. While I don't have time at this moment to give further thoughts on this silly documentary and the countless reasons (most already well-stated in response to claims of The Da Vinci Code , I did want to point out something about the messenger -- Bloodline's director, Bruce Burgess -- that gives reasons to doubt his credulity: he is a person who has previously made other equally unbelievable documentaries. According to Newsbusters.org : Over a three day stretch, ABC devoted almost 15 minutes of air-time to a documentary filmmaker who asserts in his movie "Bloodline" that the resurrection of Jesus Christ was a massive hoax perpetrated on humanity. Additionally, on Friday's "Nightline,...

[Introductory note from Jason Pratt: the previous entry in this series of posts can be found here. The first entry can be found here. ] In my discussion building up to (in hindsight) a positive argument for God's existence and character, I have been trying to pare off variations of philosophy which as far as I can tell are contradictory at their primary level--and of course I have tried to explain why I do not accept philosophies which require an active advocacy of contradiction. In the process of trying to avoid absurdity, I have introduced the concept of what I am calling an Independent (or alternately an Interdependent) Fact--an IF. As I have done this, I find I am essentially recognizing and calling attention to something which everyone at bottom agrees exists; because in the process of checking the systemic integrity of fundamental proposals, I have discovered that even the opponents of an IF, if they are saying anything other than meaningless nonsense, are talking (without r...

[Introductory note from Jason Pratt: the previous entry in this series of posts can be found here. The first entry can be found here. ] In the previous chapter [several entries ago], I said there were three ways the Final Fact can be (and historically has been) considered to transcend our ability to think about it. I have already dealt with the first option: that nothing we say about the IF can be true; and I have explained why I reject this position and any positions built upon it. The second option is that everything we say about the IF can be true. [Footnote: This position is not to be confused with a position stating that all facts have Independent status. I’ll be discussing variants of that position later.] This would certainly qualify as a concept we cannot fully fathom; and its adherents often affirm that such claims are particularly true: i.e., that the IF is not a generality or pure abstraction (although sometimes they go this route, too). Best of all, its adherents can say ...

This is the fourth in a series about the debate between Darwinian evolutionists and advocates of Intelligent Design. In part 1 , I used President Bush's statement that the debate should be "properly taught" to point out that no one (at least, no leading figure in the debate) is presently advocating that ID be taught with the same weight as Darwinian evolution. Rather, the case that is being made is that it should be introduced and taught fairly so that students can understand the controversy. In part 2 , I pointed out that statements to the contrary notwithstanding, the central hypothesis of Darwinian evolution has not actually been tested. That doesn't mean that there isn't a lot of evaluating of the evidence and placing the evidence into the Darwinian evolutionary framework. The fact that the evidence fits so nicely (much of the time) into that framework provides evidence that the framework is true. But the problem is that the framework itself remains untested a...

[Introductory note from Jason Pratt: the previous entry in this series of posts can be found here. The first entry can be found here. ] [Note: the previous entry ended with the questions, "So why can there not be grounds stretching on forever with no end, no Final Fact? Why can there not be an infinite regression?"] For what it is worth, I don't think it is possible to prove that an infinite regress does not exist--nor that it does exist. So I will presume each of these two mutually exclusive options; and then check to see if either or both of the options crash. Let me presume, for purposes of argument, that an infinite regress is real. What advantages does a proposed system of thought have, when based on this presumption? None! If an infinite regress is true, then we have no means of reaching valid conclusions. This is because we habitually presume, when we offer explanations or arguments, that somewhere 'behind' or 'under' the explanation (metaphorical...

What should be the starting assumption regarding God's existence in discussions about the existence of God? Should the starting assumption be that God doesn't exist? Is the starting assumption that God does exist? Is the starting point that we don't know whether or not God exists? Apparently, the response to this question was considered the highlight of a debate between atheist Richard Foley of the University of Missouri and theist Grant Sterling of the Eastern Illinois University -- at least, the article in the Journal-Gazette Times-Courier article about a debate begins with Dr. Foley's answer. The article, entitled Debate fails to settle question of God's existence , by Amber Williams, gives Dr. Foley's answer in the form of an analogy quoted from Dr. Foley wherein he claims that the starting point should be that God doesn't exist. Facing a question from an audience member on why he believes everyone should start out in life thinking like an atheist, Rich...

[Introductory note from Jason Pratt: the previous entry in this series of posts can be found here. The first entry can be found here. ] In the previous chapter (i.e. the previous few journal entries), I brought to the forefront a term I have already begun to use here and there in this book: the IF, the Independent-or-Interdependent Fact. Now I will discuss this concept directly, not only because I will be using it with increasing frequency as I continue, but because I think its existence must be accepted to avoid nonsensical positions. [Footnote: the acronym for Independent or Interdependent Fact happens to be the English word 'if'; but this is only coincidental.] I have just finished explaining why I reject the position that God must be an abstract generality (and thus can have no particular aspects, even in principle, to be discovered). My reply was that in my experience the abstract describes the real (or, more accurately, we use 'the abstract' to describe the re...

[Introductory note from Jason Pratt: the previous entry in this series of posts can be found here. The first entry can be found here. ] What is a 'generality'? The answer to this question can be horribly complicated; but I think the basic answer (upon which all other more advanced answers must be based) is that a generality is a description: it is about something, as distinct from being something. It is like a reflection in our minds of a pattern of what has happened, or can happen, or will happen. The pattern does not exist as a particular entity; it is about entities. [Footnote: Or, to be more specific, the pattern of 'aboutness' does not itself need to be the entity being described by the 'aboutness'. Obviously, there will be a few exceptions, such as when we think about thinking: yet the principle must still hold. Not everything I say with my tongue is 'about' my tongue, or about tongues; but I could also say something about tongues with my ton...

Often neglected in genre studies is the Gospel of John. Present scholarship tends to view Matthew and Mark as examples of ancient biographies. Luke is also often placed in this genre, though some point to its connection with Acts and see the two works as representative of ancient historiography. The Gospel of John, to the extent it is discussed, is usually mentioned along with Mathew and Mark as an example of ancient biography. The link is not usually dwelled on because many commentators view the fourth Gospel as much more concerned with theology than history. Leave it to Richard Bauckham to directly challenge such a dismissive approach to the Gospel of John. In his recent book, The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple , he looks through fresh eyes at the Gospel of John and seeks to understand what genre influences exerted themselves on the fourth Gospel. Bauckham’s conclusion is that “far from appearing the least historical of the four Gospels, to a competent contemporary reader J...

[Introductory note from Jason Pratt: the previous entry in this series of posts can be found here. The first entry can be found here. ] As I follow my line of thought through these chapters, I am finding that certain issues which will be developed more clearly at the beginning of my second section are coming to the forefront now--and must necessarily do so. I worry about this, because I do not want to presume my later conclusions here in an unfair manner--for which I, as a sceptic, would be keeping a sharp and (rightfully) suspicious watch! Furthermore, I suspect some of my Christian (and other theistic) brethren will be taken aback at the strong criticisms I have leveled at certain people on 'my side of the aisle'. I do think such criticism is necessary; and I have tried to explain why I think this, as I bring up the topics. Yet I would not blame such brethren for being suspicious, at this point, about where exactly I am going with all this. Keeping these prudent suspicions i...