And Feelings began to teach the multitudes, and the people followed them gladly, for they taught with authority, and not as the Facts (Gospel of Thomas, Menopausal Skateboarder’s Study Edition).
The feelings that will really get you somewhere these days, at least at places like the University of Missouri and the rest of America, are a particular kind of feeling. The feeling of satisfaction for a job well done doesn’t count. The feeling you have when your kid scores the winning run doesn’t matter. The feeling you have when you and your men, having seen the Pacific for the first time, look at each other with wild surmise, silent upon a peak in Darien . . . that feeling? A trifle.
No, in order to buy anything with the debased currency of Feeeelings, you need to take out your wallet in order to find your maxed out cards of wet cat indignation, intense outrage, affronted dudgeon, bruised sensibilities, sullen vulnerability, and plain old butt hurt. Not only so, but in order to try to use one of those cards on one of the local merchants anymore, you need to have the cajones of a brass monkey.
Political correctness is a broken down locomotive shuddering to a stop in some jerkwater town. Political correctness is now whistling around Safeway like a child’s party balloon that slipped off the helium tank. Political correctness is a spider mom that is now occupied with eating all her babies. Political correctness is a top-heavy toddler running down a grassy esplanade, one with a pretty steep slope. Political correctness is about to join the children of Amalek in the storage units of Sheol.
Finding a politically correct situation that made any kind of sense whatever would constitute a surprise. Not an ultimate surprise, but a pretty big one. Like the archaeologist who dug down to find the Neanderthal birthday party that was held once for that little Neanderthal girl, and who, as an expert archaeologist, was surprised to find all the fossilized balloons still intact. That level of surprise.
Not only are we dealing with Feeeelings, but all of them have now reached quite an orchestral crescendo. The conductor is carrying on like an old lady in her kitchen trying to hit a bee with her spatula. The violinist are sawing away like they were all going to be executed in the morning. The trumpeters, cheeks distended, like Dylan’s answers, are blowing in the wind.
I interrupt this blog post to apologize for the metaphor levels. I think it is caused by some kind of inversion layer.
University officials in Missouri resign over a bunch of nothing because of the tyranny of feelings. One in four women are sexually assaulted on college campuses because feminists feel like statistics are necessarily validated by how dire they are. One in three women, regardless of the actual number of assaults, would feel even truer. Colleges create safe spaces for emotionally bruised students who feel they are not up to the horror of having speakers on campus who do not share their views. In every controversy, regardless of the merits, hapless officials believe that their first responsibility is to affirm and validate the feelings of the offended. Self-designated victims vie for pole position on the LookatMe NASCAR Speedway, and evangelical ministries seek to drum up business by getting their corporate logos onto the cars of feeling. Sentio ergo sum. I feel, therefore I am.
If you will permit a shameless appeal at this point — for how it fits the moment is uncanny — it seems to us that we released The Free Speech Apocalypse at exactly the right time. If you watch that most excellent film, you can see victims actually painting their own bruises on. At least nobody said ow ow ow while they were doing it.
Victim make-up for made-up victims.
I agree that fact should be the benchmark for decision making. Thank you.
But what is faith other than the ‘feeling’ that something is true with zero facts to support the assertion? You don’t get to throw stones from a glass house.
Even our English word faith carries with it connotations of “trust” which is based on a pattern of evidence. It may be popular to caricature faith in God as blind faith, or faith without reason or evidence, but no careful Christian thinker has ever understood faith to operate in this way. The Scriptures speak of faith as the “assurance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things unseen.” I have faith in my wife. That faith in not contrary to the evidence, but supported by the evidence. In other words, my trust for my wife is based, in part,… Read more »
It is no caricature. There is no proof for your god or any of the 4200 other ones. To posit it’s existence and believe in the resulting stories with no objective evidence other than it ‘feels’ true is faith. It fits like a glove when discussing the theology that undergirds every single Wilson argument. For Wilson to sneer about political correctness being wrong because… ‘feelings’ is absurd considering. And to cut one avenue of retort off at the pass, I think the new PC is just awful and that university education and actual free speech is under fire. Just not… Read more »
I understand that you think faith in God is a blind faith with zero evidence supporting it, no doubt because of your commitment to methodological naturalism, however I am not responding to that perspective but responding to the assertion “But what is faith other than the ‘feeling’ that something is true with zero facts to support the assertion?” To that assertion, I would encourage you to pay more attention to the way in which the English word faith has been historically understood and is still being used today. No doubt, the word is undergoing recent changes such that it is… Read more »
I think that my meaning was pretty clear. The one that pertains to this discussion. Not to a good intuition about your wife or a politician.
Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof- Oxford English dictionary.
There really is a vast difference between saying “the Christian faith is fundamentally irrational because it is based on no evidence and therefore reduces to wishful thinking,” and saying “what is faith but wishful thinking?” To the former, a reasonable dialogue can take place over what constitutes “evidence.” To the latter, profitable discussion is preempted ipso facto through careless rhetoric. In other words, if “faith” itself is a fundamentally irrational concept, then there is no point in having a reasonable conversation about something which is fundamentally unreasonable. Surely you can recognize the difference between the two types of statements? Richard… Read more »
It seems that what you really want is to argue about rhetoric and semantics. Because fact and evidenced based arguments are hard to come by for you it seems. The Oxford definition is a solid one and clearly the one I meant. The only straw man is the one you keep trying to erect.
And what is embarrassing to watch is the willful obscurantism and insistence on misrepresentation. I will accept actual evidence- the observable, testable, repeatable kind. Not ‘christian evidence’ or ‘christian definitions’. Or muslim, sikh, hindi, scientologist or any other beliefs proffered with zero proof.
Given our scientific underdtsmding of the universe there is about a 50% minimum probability that God exists.
On the subject of faith, this video https://youtu.be/dmP9XozKEV0 of Phil Plait at a TAM conference has a quote at about the three and a half minute mark that ‘our brains are not wired for skepicism our brains are wired for faith’. Assuimg that statement is true it is probably impossible to rewire your brain to not have faith so the question is not whether you have faith but what do you have faith in?
“It seems that what you really want is to argue about rhetoric and semantics. Because fact and evidenced based arguments are hard to come by for you it seems.” What remarkable conclusions you draw! If you would have asked, then I would have been happy to provide the because for you :) I want to argue about rhetoric and semantics, because you have framed the discussion in such as way as to disqualify any appeal to evidence as inherently contradictory to our definition of faith. This is really not a difficult point to grasp if you try. One way to… Read more »
What Rand is saying, if he were honest with himself, is that he believes God to be inherently untrustworthy.
Exactly, which is a faith commitment on RandMan’s part.
Of course I do not agree with that. I clearly defined what I meant by faith in this context- religious faith. Permissible evidence would be: observable, repeatable, testable.
People witnessed Jesus risen from the dead, and testified to that fact in the most widespread, documented ancient text we possess. Observable.
The sun that God made comes up every single day, without exception. Repeatable.
Taste and see that the Lord is good. Testable.
But something tells me you won’t accept that as evidence, regardless of the fact that the thought processes used in evaluating evidence are themselves evidence of an intelligent Creator.
If you won’t test what we have to offer, you don’t get to complain that we don’t have evidence.
Personal anecdote is not proof.
But any proof I submitted would have to be experienced by yourself, so at what level do you stop calling evidence mere “personal anecdote?”
RandMan will now please provide “observable, repeatable, testable” evidence that “all beliefs require proof”. Or is that just a faith commitment on his part? His refusal to provide the observable, repeatable, testable evidence will tell us.
The only distinction I recognize between religious faith and any other faith is the object of the faith.
“observable repeatable and testable” such as sea creatures
becoming reptiles, which become mammals which become apes which become men. That kind of observable repeatable and testable?
If you think that ‘apes become men’, then you may need to do some research about evolution, common ancestry and the types of scientific evidence that prove the theory before we go there. There is a tremendous amount of information if you are willing to look. Let me know if you have trouble finding good sources.
Try here: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01
Sorry for the confusion. I in no way suspect men came from apes. Nor do I entertain the notion of an evolutionary “common ancestor. There are way too many problems with the theory. Absolute genetic differences, and lack of junk DNA just to throw out. I find that all the evidence used to support the common ancestor theory requires pretty staunch presuppositions in that direction. In fact it all looks like evidence of a highly skilled design engineer to me. But then, I look at design for a living.
I do not think men came from apes either. That would be to completely misunderstand evolution on a fundamental level. While the existence of “junk” DNA may be problematic for you as a creationist, it’s actually useful for evolutionary theory. Non-conserved, noncoding DNA inside the chromosome, what we traditionally think of as ‘junk’ can mutate rapidly and widely without harm to the organism. It has been extensively researched, that these noncoding regions can serve basically as starting points for gene evolution, where changes can occur randomly without altering the organism, and then be brought into the game all at once,… Read more »
again I must apologize for confusion. I am not claiming an issue due to the existence of “junk DNA”. Rather I am positing that lack of “Junk DNA” is problematic for evolutionary theory. a couple of quick examples Dan Graur, 2012: “there exists a misconception among functional genomicists that the evolutionary process can produce a genome that is mostly functional” Dan Graur, 2013: “If the human genome is indeed devoid of junk DNA as implied by the ENCODE project, then a long, undirected evolutionary process cannot explain the human genome.” The fact is that the closer we look and the… Read more »
Assuming your viewpoint true for a moment (which I do not from my reading on the subject) it still wouldn’t matter as evolution itself makes no prediction on the existence of Junk DNA. if it did turn out to be a myth as per your Graur, whose viewpoints I do not know and therefore cannot comment on, it would not falsify the theory in any way.
Graur would be yours as opposed to mine if anyone’s. Traveling just now, but must say I am surprised by your assertion ” makes no prediction” as I have read somewhat to the contrary.
Well, you can look into it. Anyway, Junk DNA has never been an important part of modern biology and was largely invented by the media. The accurate term is ‘non-coding DNA’ or ‘non-coding RNA’.
Rhetoric with a hammer works well on you. The dialectic is far above your current convictions.
Rand,
I could recommend some short books that would purport to offer you evidence for our God, if you are interested.
Thank you David, I am not up for wading through theology (if that it the thrust of the evidence,) but I would be happy to hear your takeaways from those books. I have a feeling that our idea of what constitutes evidence may have a river between them- bit I am certainly game.
To demand physical, material evidence for a nonphysical, nonmaterial being is begging the question.
Of course, if you’ve determined a priori that only material things exist, then the sort of philosophical evidence that could be brought won’t persuade you at all. But to pretend that an a priori commitment to materialism doesn’t constitute “faith” of some sort is pretty naive in itself.
Philisophical evidence? Please. Is that like katecho’s scriptural evidence?
To demand observable, testable, repeatable evidence for a nonphysical, nonmaterial being is to be merely reasonable. You dismiss without a thought the hundreds of other gods still worshiped on earth, yet somehow yours is above the most basic standards of proof.
But by all means, continue to erroneously insist that my commitment to actual evidence is a kind of faith… if that makes you feel better about yours.
Randman, to scorn philosophy and praise science is only to show that you know little of the historic identity between these disciplines, and the horrific amputation a scientific education suffers when it is removed from its philosophical context.
Randman: “Who the heck needs philosophy?”
Me: “Why do we need science, Randman?”
Randman: “Well, we need science because…”
Me: “Annnd, you’re doing philosophy.”
RandMan will now please provide “observable, repeatable, testable” evidence that “all beliefs require proof”. Or is that just a faith commitment on his part? His refusal to provide the observable, repeatable, testable evidence will tell us. I actually have hard mathematical evidence (Godel’s Incompleteness Thm) that all true beliefs cannot even be proven within the system. It’s not even possible, let alone a requirement. Yet RandMan continues to speak in his ignorance, and, in an apparent blind faith commitment, demands that all of our beliefs be proven. This is an internal self-stultification. His is a faith which rejects faith; a… Read more »
“Herr professor, the facts belie your theory!’ ‘Well then hang the facts.”
RandMan has attempted the naive proof demand before. I offered him a proof challenge then, but he was apparently unable to rise to it. I’ll offer the challenge again by quoting from the other thread: RandMan wrote in that other thread: Randman would rather enjoy katecho for once providing any objective proof at all for his presuppositional position that there is a god who is responsible for everything including logic which apparently no one can use unless they admit it was created by a magic being for which there is exactly zero evidence. Classic proof-demands from the atheist. RandMan’s comment… Read more »
That is perhaps the biggest load of horsesh*t you have offered up yet. So much so, that I can’t even respond to you in the third person. There is nothing naive about requiring proof for someone who makes a truth claim. You say there is a god. You cannot prove there is. Happy to end the conversation there. Unless you can? The burden is not on me or anyone else to prove there isn’t something. But call me naive… But even so, you inspire me katecho. I have decided to look into some other solid scriptural testimony as evidence: L… Read more »
Your pathetic display of blowing smoke out your ass is quite legendary for all those who must endure your multiple selfie moments. If by some strange reason we were ever linked as “friends” via FB, selfie pics would predominate all your posts I.
Narcissism 101.
You visit this blog because we are the only community you have.
That’s cool.
Don’t be a prick.
When an idea is beyond your limited intelligence and world-view your resort to mockery and/or dismissal.
All that Tim asked of you is to examine a difference in definitions; that is Aristotle 101–start with definitions.
Its not that you disagree for you have not even begun the debate (a debate starts with definitions) rather, you run away.
No. I was pretty clear about my definition. And I understand his alternative one- both valid by dictionary standards to describe two different uses of the word. He refuses to engage mine. You however, I may run away from.
What people are wishing to see from you is an ability to engage a topic in a logically consistent way. The way you frame the discussion that you are trying to have is rhetorically manipulative and laughably absurd. If 1) the material world is all that exists; and 2) God is spiritual and not material; then 3) God does not exist. This sort of reasoning is rightly criticized as vicious circular reasoning. Christian’s will ask you to prove point 1). How do you prove premise 1) when your criteria for allowable evidence only includes evidence which is observable, testable, and… Read more »
RandMan: The “burden” is on all of us, not just on the Christians. I’m not sure why you keeping insisting that your beliefs are “reasonable” and everyone else’s are not. I mean, based on what?
“To demand observable, testable, repeatable evidence for a nonphysical, nonmaterial being is to be merely reasonable.” We disagree. Why are you right and why are we wrong?
*Watches as RandMan picks up his ball and goes home*
We’d be happy if you explored your own worldview with as much passion as you use to try to explode ours.
RandMan’s epistemic ignorance is on grand display for all to see. Notice that, once again, RandMan fails to engage with the challenge before him. I have asked him twice to please prove that all true beliefs require proof. He has failed to do so. It’s like he can’t even acknowledge the proof demand challenge when it is turned back on him. Knowing Godel’s result, I am not even worried that RandMan can prove that all true beliefs require proof. Godel showed that all true beliefs can’t be proven within the system itself, even though they are, nevertheless, true. We can… Read more »
No. I asked you to prove your claim. You cannot. Unless you deny that you belief in an invisible intercessory god?
You ‘know’ your god exists just like a scientologist ‘knows’ Xenu exists. Asking me to ‘prove proof is necessary’ is laughable ridiculous and an excellent example of your desperation in the face of a simple burden of proof. Thank you for laying it out so clearly.
RandMan believes that all beliefs require proof, but when challenged on his belief that all beliefs require proof, he is unable to provide any proof. Therefore, RandMan simply holds, by an unproven faith commitment, that all beliefs require proof. This is what we call epistemic self-stultification. At this point RandMan doesn’t know which way is up.
Notice that we can point out this inconsistency in RandMan’s epistemology without any appeal to Christianity. RandMan’s epistemology falls apart under its own weight. This is an applied internal presuppositional apologetic.
RandMan wrote: I asked you to prove your claim. You cannot. Unless you deny that you belief in an invisible intercessory god? I asked RandMan to prove his claim that all beliefs require proof. He could not. This simply demonstrates that RandMan is just as dependent on faith commitments as we are. It shows that RandMan is not epistemically self-aware. He doesn’t recognize his own dependence on faith because his faith rests in RandMan’s blind spot. In that sense, it is a blind faith. On the other hand, we Christians confess that, without faith, it is impossible to please God.… Read more »
You are saying that it requires faith to know that there ‘isn’t something’. Headache from that thought aside, then I suppose yes by your standards I have faith that there is no tooth fairy. Next.
“We are not ashamed to depend on faith in an invisible God.” Well, thank you. You and I can be done on this subject.
(But the bullet thing? That’s just dumb katecho- and weirdly aggressive. You are better than Pascal’s wager. And fantasies of violence towards those you disagree with.)
RandMan seems to have trouble following my simple argument. All of RandMan’s beliefs, about tooth fairies or anything else, are built upon other beliefs which are ultimately grounded in faith commitments. This is trivial to demonstrate. It may give RandMan a headache, but that’s because his own worldview is allergic to faith, not because he actually has a counterargument to offer us. Aside from his diversion about tooth fairies, the particular challenge (the one that RandMan is currently failing at) is to provide a proof that all beliefs require proof. RandMan seems to be on a dead run away from… Read more »
*its
Thatz all you got?
Sorry, English teacher by trade. Besides, I’ve seen better from you (honest compliment).
I’d just like to note that free speech was a Christian development. Complaining that free speech is being used as a vehicle for Christian thought is like complaining that the people you’re hitch-hiking a ride from aren’t going to your desired destination. Losers.
Ah, that ole’ christian Socrates.
And who is complaining that free speech is a vehicle for christians? I can support your speech without agreeing with your views.
“Just not as a vehicle to smuggle in some kind of reformed christian theology. Free speech itself is enough.”
I think it was you, but I’m not sure. All I have is a written word of doubtful origin, and your personal testimony. Mere anecdotes, really.
What came before our common ancestor again?
Our common ancestor? Yours and mine? Modern humans and another species?
If you are actually interested in an answer to this question, I recommend the book _The God Who Is There_ by Francis Schaeffer. To summarize: faith is believing in the truth when presented with evidence of it.
I would add that once arriving at that, it then becomes loyalty to the Person, as in semper fidelis to the King of kings.
Ok. Ready to be presented with the evidence. Hit me.
Let’s start with the basics: what evidence do we have that any historical figure existed?
I said evidence not bread crumbs down apologetics lane.
Evidence that you’ve already decided to be valid or invalid, obviously. The evidence is the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and the church he built — historical facts reported by eyewitnesses.
Personal anecdote is not proof. There are thousands of other gods in the graveyard each with churches once built up and now forgotten. That is not proof either. Jupiter anyone? Odin?
False.
The overwhelming majority of people in the world who have ever lived claim to have experience of the spiritual world. That is evidence. It is to the one with the deeply aberrant view that the burden of proof falls. I can’t prove anything to you if you close your eyes and stop your ears. But it is enough to point out that your point of view requires us to redefine “normal people” as “crazy people”.
You do not understand basic burden of proof. It is on the one who affirms a claim.
By your standards the faeries in my garden, ghosts in my attic and celestial teapot are just as relevant to this discussion.
How fortunate that you are settled on a universal negative like “God does not exist.” With that statement, there’s no proof necessary, right? Just ignore the majority of humanity and history.
I do not say god does not exist. I personally think that it is highly unlikely and there is no proof for the existence of a god. Call me an atheist adjacent agnostic. If proof is discovered then I will adjust my opinion. The burden of proof lies with those making the claim. 101.
So just to get this straight:
You reject any philosophical argument as evidence.
You reject any testimony other than that of your own eyes and ears (but only on this topic, since you accept dozens of things on testimony every day.)
You reject physical evidence, such as creation, since that appears compatible with other hypotheses.
What are we left with, RandMan? God touching you on the nose? Keep in mind you’re divorcing yourself from a scientific tradition of what constitutes evidence.
RandMan believes that all beliefs require proof, but when challenged on his belief that all beliefs require proof, he is unable to provide any proof. Therefore, RandMan simply holds, by an unproven faith commitment, that all beliefs require proof. This is what we call epistemic self-stultification. At this point RandMan doesn’t know which way is up.
Notice that we can point out this inconsistency in RandMan’s epistemology without any appeal to Christianity. RandMan’s epistemology falls apart under its own weight. This is an applied internal presuppositional apologetic.
Ridiculous. Typical MC Escher staircase of an argument from the katecho. Looks impressive, no beginning, no end, goes nowhere. Rhetorical vapor. I also have a ‘belief’ that the earth is round and revolves around the sun and that germs cause disease- not evil spirits. How do I know this? Revelation? Hmm… I guess my ‘faith’ is strong there. If you are making a truth claim about the nature of the universe i.e there is a god named Posieden that controls the sea and makes waves when he is angry, or that ancient thetans were destroyed by Xenu in an volcano,… Read more »
I wouldn’t mind seeing an answer to the question “Do all beliefs require proof?”. Why don’t you just give us your answer? Seems strange ta not to.
That is just a pile to step in. A circular logic trap. Let me be more specific… again: All truth claims require evidence.
“All truth claims require evidence.”
Got it. I’ll assume that’s not a truth claim until you present evidence for it then.
You can’t escape the circular logic necessary for your god, so you accuse everyone else of it to try in order upright your cockeyed end of the see-saw. ‘Proove proof’, you say, ‘Give me evidence for evidence’. Word games. Why not just render every possible point mute with rhetorical tail-eating and then say: god? Oh wait, you do that.
(No, not you personally Evan. You rarely if ever add to any substantive content to any conversation here that I have ever seen. Rooting for you!)
First of all, yeesh.
Second of all, we are not even talking about God, we are talking about this claim:
“All truth claims require evidence.”
Thirdly, there’s no reason to get angry.
Fourthly(?), Are these all truth claims:
“You can’t escape the circular logic necessary for your god”
“so you accuse everyone else of it to try in order upright your cockeyed end of the see-saw.”
“Word games”
” Oh wait, you do that.”
RandMan seems to be running out of steam. He pretends that my request is too complex for him to respond to, but it’s quite a simple challenge. He was unable to prove his own belief that all beliefs require proof, so his demand that we prove God’s existence had to be abandoned as hypocritical and naive. Case closed. Couldn’t be much simpler or straightforward than that. Regarding evidence, we have pointed to abundant examples, but RandMan wants to dismiss all of those out of hand by importing his own materialistic faith commitments. This demonstrates that RandMan doesn’t know how to… Read more »
No, I am saying your circular aha is not worth responding to. It is obvious and beneath both of us. You obviously reject the scientific burden of proof as it pulls the rug right out from under you. So nothing really to discuss. Your desire to include revelation and scripture as evidence is easily dismissable unless you want to allow my book of mormon and dianetics into the discussion.
RandMan hasn’t shown any circularity in my challenge to him. And the scientific method could only ‘pull the rug out from under me’ if I was silly enough to go around pretending that all of my knowledge and beliefs were scientific, or logically proven. RandMan is the one standing on that rug and playing that game (poorly). RandMan wrote: You obviously reject the scientific burden of proof as it pulls the rug right out from under you. RandMan seems confused. Proofs are for math and logic. The scientific method comes with very rigorous requirements (like repeatability) that don’t apply to… Read more »
Yes katecho, you got me. Your request is too complex. I will now admit that requiring you to hold to classic definition of the burden of proof is me merely holding ‘a belief’ in that burden which in itself requires proof. What, are we stoned in the basement? dumb. As I wrote Jon, In epistemology, the burden of providing evidence is the obligation the party making the claim holds to provide sufficient warrant for their position. If you want to play coy about this, so be it. You already admitted faith is all you have… I was truly impressed with… Read more »
Yet you expect us to embrace your arguments based on your proclaimed superior insight and intelligence. Yet, we know your argument, show you its flaws and offer a counter-argument you reject out-of-hand as poofery.
This is the definition of willful ignorance. Heisenberg–of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle–did not dismiss philosophy–his theory is, according to him, best understood in terms of Aristotle’s potentia–an idea you would dismiss as “Rhetorical vapor.”.
Yet, this “Rhetorical vapor” explains the most cutting edge science of the human race.
I am praying your mind opens.
Atheistic burden shifting is classic, but that doesn’t make it rational. RandMan so desperately wants Christians to bear a burden of proof to derive our presuppositions, but that desire is a dead horse. It died when we simply noted that presuppositions are not derived, they are axiomatic. It also died when we discovered that RandMan is unable to prove that all beliefs require proof, thus failing his own standard for beliefs. That he continues to drag the dead horse around simply means that he is unwilling to apply any skeptical inquiry into his own beliefs. Apparently, RandMan will just continue… Read more »
Why do you believe the earth revolves around the sun, other than personal anecdotes?
sigh.
“sigh”? Is that all you have? Either you are willing to seriously consider how knowledge and faith work or you aren’t. I’m willing to believe you want to have a good faith discussion but you have to put in some effort too. You started this by asking “what is faith other than the ‘feeling’ that something is true with zero facts to support the assertion?”. The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth are facts with just as much, if not more, supporting evidence as anything else we know from history. Why, then, do you erect a strawman about… Read more »
No, not all I have of course, it just makes me tired to think that I have to engage you as to whether the earth cycling around the sun is something we know from personal anecdote. Some of you christians can’t grant the simplest things without a knee-jerk maze of apologetics. Is it because personal anecdote is the only ‘fact’ you have for the life of Jesus? Wait! there isn’t even that. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent,… Read more »
Ahem. You state your assumptions as if they are fact. Care to prove it?
You are going off the assertion of others who didn’t live in the era Jesus lived in. Why are they infallible, in your opinion, but the writers of the New Testament are?
These are very simple epistemological questions that philosophers, even atheistic ones, have wrestled with for centuries. So, just for one example, you assert “all beliefs require proof” — which means you somehow reject existentialism out of hand. Why? That’s an equally atheistic philosophy. IOW, we are asking questions that honest atheists would also ask. You need to gird up your loins and figure out your own philosophical reasonings before sniping at anyone else.
Come on Jon.
In epistemology, the burden of providing evidence is the obligation the party making the claim holds to provide sufficient warrant for their position. If you want to play coy about this, so be it.
It is not up to me to provide evidence that every possible imaginary creature I can conjure does not exist.
You completely fail to notice that you also are making a claim. C’mon, are you really this blind to your own beliefs?
What claim? That there is not something? Blind to what? katecho’s gleeful circular logic?
I believe that truth claims require evidence. Not so complicated. But apparently I have to provide evidence of the need for evidence- always the same silliness around these parts. Facts fail this argument for you guys so you have to resort to TAG silliness.
If you knew even one thing about basic philosophy, you’d know that these questions are far from “silliness.” You assume what you need to prove, and then laugh off questions about your assumptions. OK then, carry on.
So, you dismiss the most widely circulated book in the world as ‘not proof’ of our belief that God does exist? Do you just wish away the Bible? Really? BTW, an overwhelming majority of people in this world believe in a creator of some kind. Why do you think that is? You start from the presupposition that God does not exist. Have you every wondered why, then, so many people believe in supernatural beings? Your man-made god (science) does not understand everything, can’t ‘prove’ how we came into existence, is still searching for answers and is becoming more and more… Read more »
I do not have the presupposition that god does not exist. Technically I am an agnostic. But utter absence of evidence has winnowed my potential belief to almost nothing. It is not up to me to prove that your imaginary god is false. I cannot disprove every fanciful creature imaginable. I trust the scientific method. Science done wrong can of course can be wrong in practice, but the method insures that it won’t be wrong for long. It provides the framework that allows for the possibility of overturning beliefs that are proven false. Religion on the other hand requires taking… Read more »
If the fairies and ghosts were as universally attested as the grass and trees, then the burden would tend to fall on the fellow who denied their existence. In other words, you have the right to take a wildly eccentric view, but you don’t get to insist that it’s on all fours with what the sensible people think.
No that is not how the burden of proof works. Look it up- you are online. I am tired of typing it.
Newsflash! Billions of people in this world believe in a creator of the Earth and the universe. Are they all bonkers? Who should have the burden of proof? Would not the minority have to prove that they are in the right? Could billions of human beings be crazy? Since there is no proof that the majority is crazy, aren’t you the one that is?
I am not calling anyone crazy. It seems you are though. I think that I have written about a dozen times in the past 24 hours who has the responsibility of the epistemological burden of evidence. It seems that many christians here do not accept this most basic idea. Apparently some think the conversation should grind to an apologetic halt at the idea of the burden of proof itself being a belief that requires evidence. Therefore all we can really have is faith. So there can be no facts, anything can be evidence including revelation and scripture. By this definition… Read more »
‘The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.’
Because you, RandMan, cannot physically see God, you have therefore fooled yourself into thinking there is no God despite evidence to the contrary.
I think that I have written about a dozen times in the past 24 hours who has the responsibility of the epistemological burden of evidence. It’s not quite that simple. It depends on what the common position is, and what is reasonable. If you claim that you have a mother, I could argue that you need to prove that claim. But that is somewhat unreasonable as most people have a mother. Saying Christians claim there is a God therefore they should prove it could be turned around to Randman claims there is not a God therefore he should prove it.… Read more »
The burden is not on me to prove there is nothing. I cannot disprove every conceivable god, fairie, goblin, demon or imaginary creature. I’m sure you laugh at the intergalactic claims of scientology. They think they have credible evidence. How can you deny them their faith? What about the prophet and his claims? When you accept religious claims on faith (with no evidence) you give away your right to criticize others. The scientific method is sound and allows us to actually kick the tires on an idea. One can reject the method, reject scientific theory, reject the actual range of… Read more »
The burden is not on me to prove there is nothing. I cannot disprove every conceivable god, fairie, goblin, demon or imaginary creature I thought you said the burden of proof is on those who make a claim? You are claiming that these things don’t exist. But it was more for me to point out that the burden of proof doesn’t always fall on the person making the claim. If you mentioned your mother in a post I don’t get to say prove you have a mother and the burden of proof is on you. Burden of proof depends. Normally… Read more »
I was not scoffing. I merely pointed out some of the plentiful biblical tropes that have no evidence. Point me to some actual evidence for some of them them… any of them.
You have failed to respond to my other comments.
As for evidence for Jesus’ resurrection there are 4 documents that mention this.
As for evidence for the plagues, there is the book of Exodus, there is Josephus, there is an Egyptian document called the Ipuwer papyrus which may describe the same events.
As to the Flood, this is so well documented in diverse cultures around the world it is difficult to know which to mention. Egyptian, Greek, Hebrew, Babylonian, Sumerian, Various American Indian tribes, Chinese,…
Thank you.
Your Princes and the Pea act is as tiresome in real life as it is in the fairy tale.
No evidence will be enough because you are willfully blind to it. The blindness supports your pride and your anger. All three will mar you and your loved ones over time.
God broke you, RandMan. He wants you to depend on Him, not “christiainity inc”.
Repent and pray.
You remember that? Why should I trust your memories?
Prove it using the scientific method, from first principles.
If he said it, it is testable and repeatable.
Your rules.
I love you timothy, but I never know what you are talking about.
Your myth about Feyman is unsupported. Prove it, scientifically from first principles.
The burden is on you, not me to support your assertion.
A video of him speaking will not do–videos are dubbed all the time.
A transcript will not do for the same reason.
You are making the claim about Feynman. Prove it using your criteria.
I just quoted him. Is that a claim about something?
It is you who claim that historical records are inadequate as proof.
It is you who claim that any provable thing must be proved scientifically, from first principles.
A (supposed) quote doesn’t measure up to your own standards. I suggest your ditch your hypocrisy on the matter and recant your claim or provide proof using your own metrics.
“you and your men?”, Now you’ve gone and done it.
Presented without comment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKcWu0tsiZM
What’s the TGC response? http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/mizzou-and-a-more-excellent-way
These Christian Maoists have blood on their hands and people should be crowding the exits of these churches and parachurch orgs.
That is a beautiful article. Thanks for linking it.
More evidence that the only proper response to public accusations of racism is to laugh and say “So what?”
Should we say “so what” when accused of other sins? Isn’t saying “so what” a statement about it not being wrong? Racism is wrong. It is a sin against God and man. Laughing off false charges is one thing. Saying “so what” is not appropriate.
There’s no such sin as racism. “Racism” is merely a word used to attack whoever the speaker doesn’t like, it has no rational content.
You see ashv’s avatar, right?
I keep it there just for you.
I genuinely confused as to what you’re talking about here. I read the link. I don’t get your comments. What did I miss?
He’s trolling.
Shouldn’t you be working out your daddy issues on another thread?
The concept of white racism in 2015 America is a Marxist motivating myth. This is why the truth of any particular incident doesn’t matter, white racism is the conclusion no matter what. A myth such as this serves to propel the masses towards revolution. When the media portrays episodes of a run in between a career criminal and police or the latest campus race hoax as proof of white racism TGC is right there is trot out a blog post or ten of knitting brows, frowning and tut tutting about our fallen nature and the generational scourge of American (white)… Read more »
Well the anecdote presented in the link was not a myth if it really happened. I don’t have a way of knowing if it did or not. I don’t find it hard to believe. However, what you’re pointing to is the timing and thrust of the TGC post, and others like it. The timing does smack of band wagoning; I’m not sure the thrust of the article is altogether what you seem to think. At any rate, you see, you’ve got to do more than throw out phrases like “Christian Maoists” if you want people to understand what you’re talking… Read more »
I think the timing smacks of pushback against people who want to say that racism doesn’t exist, or that it can’t hurt people that we ought to care about. You see some of those folks right here.
Ok, I’m going off on a tangent here, but I strongly detest ‘higher-education’ -ism. By this I mean people who look down on others who don’t have a sheepskin from a college or university. This is hurtful, too. Just like racism. Just because you have a big college degree doesn’t make you better than anyone else. I know many people who have more knowledge of growing crops and raising animals than I will every know, who are looked down upon in our society because they don’t have any higher education. Isn’t that a shame? It smacks of ‘racism’. Let me… Read more »
Its exactly the kind of thing I’m talking about. In the Mizzou incident the slights (if they ever happened) were so innocuous and the reaction so outrageous that people were openly mocking the story. Adams stepped in with a more sympathetic story simply to take the focus off the Missouri debacle and repeat the mantra of white racism.
When the revolution starts eating its own the best thing to do is to stand back and enjoy the show.
Oh for the good old days when people could interrupt public meetings by going on stage and shouting vile racist epithets at the black student body president, and when people could draw swastikas on college buildings without anyone making a fuss. (Sarc off.)
It’s easy to dismiss feeelllings when they’re not yours.
It is even easier to dismiss disciplined, rational and valorous acts performed by men who ignored their feelings, knowing that what they felt was a much lower priority than the given mission. There is a place that has a quote rendered “Uncommon Valor Was A Common Virtue”. These men had feelings, like real pain from crawling forward while partially disemboweled, some with elbows blown out, crawling forward on stumps with their last breath to save their brothers. I could go on and expand from there; those pushing the current narrative still would never comprehend, willfully or otherwise, because it does… Read more »
This is a day to remember and honor such men. I have just been watching the Remembrance Day ceremonies in Ottawa. My dad swam back out to rescue a comrade, and both of them were taken prisoner of war on the beaches of Dieppe. He spent three years in a stalag, then was taken on a forced march across Poland. I have watched (or attended) the ceremonies every year since I was a child, and now there are almost no veterans left from that terrible war. My dad was a hero to me, yet he was just one of millions.… Read more »
Mrs. Bean,
I did not mean to ignore your post.
My father was USMC and USN (back-to-back) in WWII, all of my uncles were WWII veterans of both Europe (Bulge, Market Garden and Anzio) and the Pacific (Iwo). All of their friends and contemporaries were the same. I was surrounded by a “company of heroes” and they would, to a man, be appalled at the instant issues that we discuss here.
RFB, do you feel that those men’s (your?) feelings are dismissed?
Not dismissed; they did not dismiss their feelings, nor do I. They did not give them a priority that determined their conduct. Of course I have feelings. If I was tasked with something dangerous, I might feel fear. So what? I classify feelings with a very low priority, so low as to be unimportant for the conduct of a mature adult life. I hold them in abeyance until I have the leisure to examine them in the light of reason so as to either grant them legitimacy, or dismiss them as unreasonable. If you are dead before you can do… Read more »
“I classify feelings with a very low priority, so low as to be unimportant for the conduct of a mature adult life.”
That’s your prerogative.
Other people don’t share your views. Are you angry when other adults place importance on feelings?
Angry? Not hardly.
I find it curiously amusing in the context of how shortly they would survive if confronted with something difficult.
Okay. Because when I said it’s easy to dismiss other folks’ feelings when they’re not yours, you responded “It is even easier to dismiss disciplined, rational and valorous acts performed by men who ignored their feelings, knowing that what they felt was a much lower priority than the given mission.” I thought I saw some resentment there. But you are saying you don’t mind if those people’s feelings are dismissed, right? Because no one’s feelings are important?
You are not understanding, so I will try again.
How about this. Feelings are dessert. Fresh warm blueberry pie, with slow-churned, hand-dipped french vanilla ice cream on top.
If you eat your dinner, you might have the privilege of enjoying dessert. But, dessert is not a priority, and is not used to determine the courses that come before it. And if I do not get to have desert today, or this week, or this month, too bad.
Sometimes life is a ham and lima bean casserole that hurts your eyes. It hurts your eyes trying to find the ham.
RFB makes a really good point about the differences you sometimes see in men and women. For women our morality, our empathy, our ability to get the job done, relies more heavily on our feelings,whereas men’s morality tends to lie more in their ability to reason. Men tend to repress their feelings to get something done, women tend to repress their reason to get something done. Neither is really right or wrong, they’re just different approaches.
Good points, ME. And so important to remember when dealing with points of law, procedure, and common sense. People who have a tendency to repress their reason are more likely to make decisions that run counter to procedure, law, and common sense…especially if they have heightened their feelings into “FEEELINGS.” Conversely, people who tend to repress their feelings are more likely to see the rule of law clearly, recall proper procedures, and utilize common sense. But if they have eliminated their feelings altogether, they can be very “cold and calculating” and no fun to be around at all. I suggest… Read more »
OK.
Some other people don’t agree. To some other people, feelings are important. The fact that two people disagree on what is important *to them* doesn’t make one right and one wrong.
1 – Feelings are not important to RFB.
2 – Feelings are important to Laura.
Both of these statements can be true. Right?
Feelings do not determine what is right or wrong however important they are. For example, abortion is wrong no matter how you feel about it. What the person feels probably is important but has no bearing on the wrongness.
I agree that abortion is wrong no matter how I feel about it.
I think that it can be sinful to hurt another person’s feelings deliberately and unnecessarily.
Setting out to hurt peoples feelings is sinfull. Telling the truth when you know it will hurt peoples feelings is not.
I think there are three questions you ask, then.
1 – Is it true?
2 – Is it kind?
3 – Is it necessary?
If you can’t say “yes” to two out of three, you stop and examine your own motives.
It’s a good thing to remember and I think it’s important to always check our intentions and motivations. One problem I see in the world today, we are obsessed with number 2, “is it kind,” and completely ignoring number 1, “is it true?”
It’s a conundrum because the truth is not always kind or at least it doesn’t always feel that way to the hearer.
Well then you have number 3 which is also important.
Something can be unkind but true, and if it’s not necessary, then you bite it back. Truth just isn’t a sufficient reason to hurt people’s feelings. Otherwise we’d be going around explaining to fat people how they’re fat, and so forth (and some people do.)
Something wrong with fat people? :0
Not a bit!
Ha! Laura, if you had the secret as to why I cannot seem to get rid of these last ten pounds and you kept the truth from me, would that not be cruel rather than kind? Some people take great offense at the idea that Christ is the way and the truth and the life and no one comes to the Father except through Him. That hurts people’s feelings, it causes offense, but is it kind to keep that truth to ourselves? I’m going with no. This is the dilemma we face when being kind and taking people feelings into… Read more »
Well, now we are getting into necessary.
And if I knew how to help people lose weight, when they are doing everything right and it just won’t come off, I’d be blasting that from the rooftops and I’d pick up a Nobel prize for it.
Agreed.
But 1 – is not the question we can ever leave out. I can’t imagine a scenario where I should say it if I know it’s not true, and I should at least qualify it if I’m not sure it’s true. So, you got it right by placing “Is it true?” first. Then you pick one of the other two. If 3 applies, it is…well, necessary to say it. Whether it is kind or not. On the other hand it could be true and kind – or I think maybe in context you meant “not unkind” ? – but not… Read more »
Your little child is crosseyed and bucktoothed, and she’s started to get some negative feedback from her peers. She comes to you all tearful and asks you, Daddy, am I ugly? You sweep her into your arms and say, no, darling, you are Daddy’s beautiful princess!
Right?
I would not think “ugly” of my little girl no matter what her condition. Of course, if she had a truly abnormal condition, or one that was causing her grief, I would do anything in my power to have the condition corrected. In the end, that would be more important than any feeling I expressed.
In the end, but not in the moment. You surely wouldn’t say, yes, you are ugly, but we’ll fix it.
As I said, “ugly” is not what I would be thinking.
But, maybe what you’re saying is that there’s not that much daylight between kindness and necessity? :)
Ultimately, probably not.
If you say to your kid:
If you don’t stop being so unpleasant you won’t have any friends left. Now stop sulking, and if you can’t, then go to your room.
he will view this as unkind in the moment. But ultimately your goal is to teach him how to act and make him aware of some social cause-and-effect.
L’, Back to feelings, also known as passions: James 4:1-2 4 What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not this, that your passions are at war within you? 2 You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel. You do not have, because you do not ask. This verse sketches out the bad side of feelings. Reason of course has a bad side as well. We have to guard against our feelings and passions, otherwise we end up having to say, “I’m sorry. I let my… Read more »
Right.
I don’t disagree with Laura’s principles of heart examination of our own motives before we speak. Those are fine. However, I don’t think Laura is touching on the issue at hand. We already know, from Scripture, that there is a time for a tender word, and a time for a sharp rebuke. Our motives are an important piece, but our motives are not ultimately what inform us about whether someone else should get a tender word or a sharp rebuke. Our motives may disqualify us from being the one to deliver the speech, but the type of speech that is… Read more »
If you answer “yes” to “is it true” and “is it necessary” then you go on.
If you answer “yes” to “is it true” and “no” to both “is it kind” and “is it necessary” then not only do you not speak, but you ask yourself why, if it wasn’t required and it wasn’t nice, you were so bent on saying whatever it was. We’ve heard of folks who have a reputation for delivering “a few home truths” whenever they felt moved to do it. We usually view these people as harsh, meddling busybodies.
I would add two more: (1) Is it my place to state this truth, or am I meddling where I don’t belong; and (2) Can the person I am criticizing do anything to fix the problem? If they can’t, I would say leave it alone.
Right right.
(1) is related to “is it necessary”.
This is a really good point, Laura, “Feelings do not determine what is right or wrong.”
I don’t know if you’ve ever been a mom, but kids will often compel you to make good decisions for them that they don’t always like. You hurt their feelings by saying no. So sometimes, being afraid to hurt someone’s feelings, can also be a sin.
I have a daughter. She’s 28 years old. I think even with raising a child you can apply the is it true – is it kind – is it necessary criteria when you think you might hurt her feelings. But I think I didn’t really hurt her feelings that much. I was kind of stern with her at times, and her dad too, but we were respectful in the way we dealt with her. I am big on leading by example. You want your kid to respect you so you can’t be rude to your kid. And she was so… Read more »
Still not on point.
Feelings are not “unimportant”. They just do not have the “right-of-way”.
God says “come, let us reason together”. The Word of God is designed to impact our intellect: “…be transformed by the renewing of your mind…”
On the “train” of our being, the intellect is the locomotive, and feelings are the caboose. If you want to change how you feel, change what you think.
RFB, are you insisting that I agree with you? If we disagree, it must be that you are right and I am wrong?
I am not insisting that you do anything. I am saying, as I am wont to, that gravity does not care about anyone’s opinion, nor does 2+2.
Take me out of the equation, take everyone out of the equation; what does God say.
OK.
Then I’ll add that gravity and 2+2 do not comprise the entire universe of the human experience.
And I think we’ve beat this horse to death.
Hi RFB and Laura, my Catholic training about feelings has been useful in my adult life. Feelings are servants, not masters, and they don’t get to call the shots. We have a duty to keep them aligned with reason, proportional, and leading us toward right action. Love for country is a good feeling if it helps you do your duty; love of children is a good feeling if it helps you to be patient and kind. Some feelings are objectively bad (such as envy and resentment) and we have a duty not indulge them but rather ask God to remove… Read more »
I think sometimes we can ask for special treatment.
Suppose that you are sensitive about some facial feature. People like to tease you about whatever it is. Once you have made it known that the teasing makes you feel bad, I believe your friends and family and coworkers are obligated to stop.
Of course.
“…coworkers are obligated to stop.”
That is an amusing statement. Close to 50 years ago I enjoyed an exhilarating experience. It was a place where personal weaknesses were actively and aggressively sought, identified and subsequently pummeled. The goal (repetitively and successfully accomplished with tens of thousands) was to strengthen.
I can imagine the look on my DI’s face if I had explained to him that “donchaknow…the teasing makes you feel bad.”
And you think that every man, woman, and child ought to have that exact experience and be taught that lesson?
I don’t.
You think that it’s perfectly fine to hurt someone else for no good reason?
I don’t.
“And you think that every man, woman, and child ought to have that exact experience and be taught that lesson?” Not whatsoever, and it makes my point exactly. To do what you suggest would be fairness, egalitarian, and ultimately the drive towards some nebulous false equality. Nonetheless, I remember all kids (circa 1950’s) being taught a little ditty about stick and stones. Boys and girls were both taught it, during a time when boys and girls were considered different, and that difference was considered fixed in place. To make a blanket statement “teasing makes you feel bad, I believe your… Read more »
“And you think that every man, woman, and child ought to have that exact experience and be taught that lesson?” Not whatsoever, and it makes my point exactly. I sincerely don’t get your point. I don’t for a moment believe it’s not possible to hurt your feelings, but evidently you do. How do you get from that, to everyone else has to endure hurtful speech and can’t ask for it to stop? You get to say what you are willing to put up with. That’s all. If you teased a coworker about her curly hair, and she told you that… Read more »
First of all, I did not say that it is “not possible” to experience “hurt feelings”. I said: “My “feelings” cannot be injured unless I grant permission.” I (as we all do) have full control over my feelings, just as I have control over my fingers on the keyboard. They do not have a life of their own, wandering about and stubbing their toe over others people’s speech. Think about the word picture of “losing your temper”, and what it really means. Temper is something given to steel that makes it the perfect combination of hardness and resiliency. If the… Read more »
If someone else said “it hurts my feelings when you say X (unnecessary thing)” do you think you ought to stop?
I cannot answer that since no one has ever said that to me. Also, I have never heard anyone say that to anyone in my presence, and Truman was my first President. As a general response, my thoughts are quite different. I do not think “you hurt my feelings”, because I do not know how it is possible to do that. I think: “I feel this, or I feel that”, not “you caused me to feel this or that”. Stimulus/response, with me choosing my response to any given stimulus. I am having a difficult enough time convincing you that your… Read more »
If no one has ever said that to you, then either you are a habitually courteous person who has never given them reason, or you are such a horror that they know it wouldn’t do any good. I’d bet money it’s the former.
Thank you for the presumption of good conduct, I am actually quite boring.
I would still insist upon my argument that with me removed from the conversation, the principle (that we are all completely responsible for our own thoughts and [subsequent] emotions) remains intact.
Another thing about feelings, is that negative feelings should not always be viewed as bad or wrong. Sometimes its good to feel sad, or hurt, or angry, or even offended. It can motivates us to be better persons.To strive harder. To fight harder. My kids are playing sports, and they are not very good at them, yet they are constantly “rewarded” with stickers, trophies, and medals to make them feel good about themselves. To make them feel that they actually accomplished something when they didn’t. This will hurt them in the long run. Why strive to get better, when you… Read more »
That’s all true. But you are telling your kids truthfully how they did in order to benefit them. You are not doing it to hurt their feelings. You’re going to tell them what they did wrong, and how to improve, and so forth, but you’re not going to tell them they’re stupid and weird and you don’t know how you ended up with such loser children, and then when they cry, mock them for it. Right?
No, but that is also not what is happening on these campuses. These students are not being told things to hurt them. They are being exposed to ideas they disagree with and then raging against the machine. They must have safe spaces from hearing things that do not line up with their world view and anyone who invades these spaces must be purged. You seem to be defending tyrants here.
No, I’m not defending tyrants.
I’m saying that feelings matter. I’m not saying they are paramount.
If you say something that is true, and that must be said, then blurt it right out. Just don’t be unnecessarily hurtful in the process.
You aren’t really arguing against this, are you?
Im not arguing against this. Are you defending the antics on the Missouri campus?
No. I’m actually not talking about what happened on the Missouri campus at all, except insofar as what I have said applies to what happened there.
If someone tells you their feelings were hurt, depending on who they are, what you know about them, what it was, etc., you may come back in a variety of ways. To say “your feelings don’t matter” can never be right.
But what about _my_ feelings, Laura? You don’t seem to have any respect for them at all.
What feeling are you expressing right now? Contempt? Don’t worry, I find it easy to dismiss that one.
Neither have I. Neither has anyone else I know. I hope you aren’t thinking that is some kind of refutation of what I said.
Do you not see “feelings” in the folks who are indignant about what happened there? Are they not clamoring to have their “feelings” heard?
The poostika appears to be a hoax. There is no evidence of it ever existing.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/11/meet-the-mizzou-student-responsible-for-hyping-the-poop-swastika/
Well, that is a good thing. There is enough darkness in the world.
I thought as much… Nobody thought to take a picture??
Evidence is racist.
That is not a word I wanted to read while munching a pork-chop.
A fuss should be made. What I don’t get is why a fuss should be made at the president of the university rather than the idiots who did the bad stuff.
Keep in mind we have no evidence so far that any of said bad stuff occurred, other than the alleged victims’ claims.
Granted. But *when* vile things are done by people, then it’s the people who do them who should be the subject of outrage, not the people who fail to say the right things about how they feel about the people who did the vile things. That’s what’s ridiculous here.
Congratulations! You are the target of ‘critical theory’ and you are funding the people who seek to destroy you.
This is not a battle to be won via dialectic. The facts do not matter, what matters is power. The facts are to be used or discarded in pursuit of power.
Communism did not die, it is here.
Lagwagon! Totally one of my favorite albums…when I was an adolescent, mind you. Someone did a Google search for the album I think? I’m glad DW chose it!
^Yes! Adolescent throwback^ I was surprised to see a Lagwagon reference on here…maybe DW is a fan…
Just yesterday at Behemoth State, this news flash: The outraged parents of a six year old girl, now deemed a boy by her parents, were sued by a black female who was fired by her school district employer for her refusal to oblige the perverted parents’ request to address the parent’s little girl as a boy. Of course the now former teacher sued her former employer, too. How the Nanny State’s PC cadre of police, judge, and jury would decide the lawsuit if I were the teacher is known: I am judged a white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant, male — the destroyer… Read more »
I was wondering if this was going to be in a blog post. I shake my head…
There’s a bumper sticker that says, “2015, the year America took offense at everything.” It is true, political correctness and feelings have been around for years, but it sure does seem as if a switch was flipped and suddenly complete strangers felt compelled to come up to me and start shrieking about global warming and the horrors of disposable coffee cups and my cis-gendered privileged status as an…object of hatred and oppression? What?! Heck if I know what’s going on. The world has lost it’s mind. I am always compelled to leave a caveat when people are complaining about feelings,… Read more »
Feelings certainly can be a good thing.
Tolkien coined the term “Mythopoeia” which referred to the feelings evoked from the themes and archetypes of classical myth. Feelings felt so deep that the reader wanted them to be true. That search for truth would eventually lead them to Scripture and what Lewis called “true myth”.
Yes! Thank you for that reminder. One thing that seems to be wrong with the world today we are disconnected from “the themes and archetypes of classical myth,” we are tossing aside centuries of traditional human wisdom, and we seem to be in this relentless state of defiance or rebellion or something.
The problem isn’t that we have feelings. God has feelings and emotions, and we are created in His image. The problem is with the use of feelings and offenses as a tool of manipulation, void of solid reasoning or authority. Political correctness and the right to quick offenses is a tool of manipulation and control. As Wilson observes, this tool has been so overused in our culture that it is beginning to shudder in its top-heaviness. This tactic will soon provoke a backlash that will probably jump us straight across the tracks right into the ditch on the other side.
Kristor at Orthosphere had a good explanation for this yesterday:
Its not coincidence that the guilt is applied in such a way as to extract money and political power from white men. I believe there was a post somewhere recently on the social justice religion transitioning from salvation through good works to there is no salvation for you.
Bookmarked the blog, thx.
I find it interesting that Doug has posted this because his new movie, books and rescent posts have all been related to his ‘feelings’. Homosexual marriage, his feelings were hurt. People stand up to him with a vastly different ideology, he irrupts into barrage of blog posts about his hurt feelings. Church sex scandal, he has to defend himself because the truth came out and his feelings were hurt. It’s all a matter of perspective. Until actual physical harm has been committed we should learn to keep our mouths shut.
Why? What’s the justification for strict harm-based morality?
Well somebody’s feelings are hurt, but it’s clearly not Wilson’s. It’s best to just let it out I guess. Keep going, we’re all listening….
I agree that today’s youth are weak mentally but this blog is within the same e lines. Doug feels the need to try to convert everyone, isn’t that their goal for Moscow? The world is made up of different people with different life experiences that shape their views, ideology etc… Doug is unable to comprehend this and has made it his life mission to put down those who do not agree.
People said that about Jesus too. Funny how that works.
It seems that Simmons’ argument is with Scripture, not with Wilson: “I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You. Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance, And the very ends of the earth as Your possession. ‘You shall break them with a rod of iron, You shall shatter them like earthenware.’ — Psalm 2:7-9 He says, “It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant To raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the… Read more »
Appears to be a hateful kingdom in which he is a servant.
Is that bad?
Most of what he has a problem with and the Calvinist teachings align with Islam countries in their practices and laws.
Would any muslim agree with with that?
None that I know, and I know many.
Is that bad? If so, why?
Apparently Simmons’ feelings are hurt by the announcement of this victorious Kingdom of Christ.
Considering more Americans are becoming Athetist I would argue for a different word than victorious.
I don’t know any “Athetists”, but if they judge the direction of history based only on 21st century America, they are sure in for a surprise.
The victory is Christ’s. It’s the zeal of God that accomplishes it.
That is fine. I have no problem with personal beliefs but when an entire community attempts to change laws and culture due their religious beliefs that is when we as a community (country) have a problem.
Clearly Simmons has a problem then, because this isn’t about a personal belief of mine. I’ve been talking about a public Kingdom, and a public King of kings and Lord of lords that conquers all other kingdoms and inherits them. Simmons needs to read Psalm 2 and Psalm 110 and decide whether he will receive the invitation, or perish in the way. This is the Gospel, and what it means for us to proclaim a public King to a dying world. If Simmons is not going to peacefully receive this invitation, then he has much to be afraid of, and… Read more »
Why do the heathen rage, and the peoples plot in vain?…He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision.Then he will speak to them in his wrath,…But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him! (Author: Jesus Christ, King of kings)
Doug is doing only what The Archon requires of him. Not a bad “life’s mission”
If you really think any of this has been about Wilson’s feelings, I question your reading comprehension skills.
His feelings are related to his theology. There is zero proof regarding his theology so he constantly must defend them.
Can you prove that? :-)
So you know him well enough to know how he feels and why? Can you prove that?
He appears to know the college students and school administration well enough to make vast acquisitions that you all agree with.
“vast acquisitions that you all agree with”?
Doug may appear to know certain things well enough, but some people do not know other things all that well — like the meanings of the big words they use.
And who is “you all”? There are lots of people commenting here who disagree.
However, if your meaning is that everyone who agrees with Doug agrees with him, then, well, yeah.
Noticed you didnt answer the question
Maybe the wrong word was used; does his ego for better.
As the author of this article points out, it’s unlikely that the football team would have gone on strike if they were having a winning season: http://www.vdare.com/articles/madness-in-missouri-football-is-not-worth-americas-future
Aren’t these the same folks who coined the phrase “paper-cut persecution” to describe Christians?
I have a contact or two among the faculty at Missouri. A lot of people had axes to grind with Wolfe over his closing the money losing university press, pouring money (ironically) into athletics and especially his role in dumping grad students from university health insurance onto Obamacare. They saw a chance to use the racial atom bomb on him in hopes that the next president will dole out more resources on the faculty and grad students. Balding white middle-aged college professors are spouting off like Malcolm X on my facebook. For the foreseeable future look for whites setting racial… Read more »
“… social justice was supposed to be Yale’s weapon against Caltech and Podunk. But now Yale students are using it against Yale professors and administrators, and now it’s a problem.” Scott Alexander
Law rears its ugly head . . . here’s a little from the MassComm prof in the wake of the “Can I get some muscle?” viral video: START I regret the language and strategies I used, and sincerely apologize to the MU campus community, and journalists at large, for my behavior, and also for the way my actions have shifted attention away from the students’ campaign for justice. STOP https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/11/10/missouri-prof-melissa-click-apologizes-for-her-role-in-trying-to-stop-photographers-at-student-protest/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_volokh Notice anything peculiar here? For what is she NOT apologizing? She regrets the words she used and the method she used and that how she tried to attain the movement’s… Read more »
“……and crown thy “good” with victimhood from see to shining see!”
The ones painting their own bruises on seemed to be the smarter ones in the crowd. They weren’t trying to pass the bruises off as being real. Violence against gays is real. Their problem is that they believe abuse includes criticism of their moral choices. That’s where you drive the logical knife.
Is there a situation where people are painting on bruises? Is this to prove a point? I assumed Doug was being figurative.
Somewhat related: Feminists, We Are Not Winning the War on Campus Sexual Assault
Hey! We got the trif-fecta
Racism
Confederate Flag
Feminism
bethyada for the win!
I think men underrate feelings at times. Feelings were given us by God and are important for a well rounded person. Many people came to Christ in situations where their feelings convicted them. And Jesus chastised the Pharisees for being calculating about justice but lacking compassion. Where things derail is when we give them too much weight, or weight in areas that they perhaps shouldn’t be. Offense is now defined by how the offended feels rather than by common cultural expectations. Foreigners inadvertently give offense because they are unaware of the mores of the culture. Anyone can now give offense… Read more »
Good comment! What strikes me as interesting, it isn’t the feelings that are the problem, it’s the wounded pride behind them.That’s what our culture’s sudden obsession with taking offense is really all about, pride. People aren’t really “feeling” anything, they’re just taking offense at everything.
You might enjoy Elizabeth Goudge. Her books are slow, and little happens, but they contain gems. She emphasises duty over feelings when our feelings are wrong. Bird in a Tree has this excellent quote; and by excellent I mean most sublime!
Evidence, Randman? (‘Hit me with it’ 4 hours ago). Wendy’s cat died. Wendy’s mom (a nurse) asked triune Jehovah to raise it from the dead. Atheist theory: it’ll stay dead. Christian theory: God may raise it (or not). Guess what happened? That’s one reason, far from the only one, I don’t take denial of triune Jehovah seriously. Your 4200 idols can look out for themselves. (Wendy is my now wife, and, yes, God raised the cat.)
Saw this yesterday and thought it was on point. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKcWu0tsiZM
Found this comment on another blog and thought it worth repeating: