Petter Häggholm’s blog

Over the course of many a fruitless religious debate, one book that my ‘opponents’ have often urged me to read is Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. I had never done so, but when I found out that the whole thing was available online (here), I went ahead and read it—in stolen snippets of two days, at that; it’s short and a light read. My very brief conclusion is that C.S. Lewis is an entirely different brand of apologist from the raucous, idiot, Ray Comfort kind to which I have previously been exposed. I get every impression that he was being quite sincere and honest. He may also very well have been intelligent. —I say “may” because this book provides no evidence that he was, but nor do I think that it provides strong evidence that he wasn’t.

That said, in the early chapters of Mere Christianity, comes off as honest, sincere, quite possibly intelligent, and completely unconvincing and to all appearances dead wrong. (This review originally contained a part explaining why I consider it coherent to be intelligent, honest, and completely wrong; that aside grew into this.) So unconvincing and so wrong, in fact, that while I consider it entirely possible that he was intelligent, and while some of his fans may very well be very intelligent (with the same rationale), anyone who was convinced by it must have had their critical thinking faculties shut off for the day. Much as a palæontologist accepts a single fossil or a physicist a single relativistic experiment, you may accept Mere Christianity as fitting into a worldview, but it is no more sufficient to build a complete theory upon. Unlike fossils and physical experiments, however, Mere Christianity attempts logical arguments, and—well, we shall see how it succeeded.

The book is written in a compelling way—easy, conversational language, and a structure where each chapter builds directly and explicitly on the one before it. Thus, he starts off by establishing a universal moral law; shows that the universal law must reflect some underlying reality; shows that this underlying reality must be an Intelligence; shows that it must be an Intelligence rather like the Christian God—and so forth. He is not mealy-mouthed, nor needlessly offensive, nor does he sound insincere. All of this gives me a rather favourable view of him as a person.

As a logician and persuader, however, I can’t give him much respect. My initial reaction to the first few chapters was that, with some minor restructuring, they could easily be retitled according to which logical fallacy he built each chapter’s claim upon. Thus one early chapter took St. Anselm’s failed Ontological Argument and applied it to moral law: We can conceive of a moral law better than our own; therefore there must be a Perfect moral law. (Not true: We might have and fully grasp the ultimate moral law but fail to recognise that it’s perfect.) Another was based on Equivocation (descriptive natural laws with prescriptive moral laws). Another, while not a formal fallacy that I’m aware of, was based on equivocating percepts with objects: That is, he went from All humans feel that there is something rather like X to Therefore, there exists an X with some sort of independent reaction. (Nonsense! If we find that all humans feel X we have indeed discovered a fact, but it’s a fact about human brains, not about the world outside them.) These percepts, once reified, were deified in short order.

Unfortunately, the book went rather downhill from this point. In the early chapters, I can really respect what Lewis was trying to do. Of course, I find that his arguments were not in fact valid, but he clearly believed the premises were true, he obviously believed in his conclusion, and as I have said before and will gladly repeat, it is often very difficult to find flaws in your own inferences when they make a path whereby, as far as you can tell, you get from the right starting point to the right end point. And in these early chapters, I am inclined to agree that if his arguments had been valid and sound, as he believed, then he had some very right and very valuable things to say; and he does lay out his arguments, however flawed, clearly and lucidly.

But this, alas, was not to last. Having once established (in his mind) that there must be a deity that shares some important, basic traits with the god of Judeo-Christian mythology, he went on to implicitly assume a whole slew of Christian dogma, and he did it so suddenly and unselfconsciously that it took me a chapter or two before I went Hang on a minute…! It is as though, once you accept a good, omnipotent creator deity, Moses, the Ten Commandments, Jesus, Judas, and the whole cabaret just followed naturally. This was a huge disappointment—he didn’t even try to show his work in this part of the examination.

The redeeming aspect of this part of the work was that if you once accept his assumptions, a lot of the things he says are very cogent and sensible. But that is not much help if you haven’t accepted those assumptions! He also argues an awful lot by metaphor. This is fine—he manages to explain a number of very weird things in Christian dogma in a way that made a lot of sense to me. So far, so good. However, a critical feature of an explanation by metaphor is that you have to be able to show how it reduces back to the real issue. Again, Lewis doesn’t fail to do this—he never even attempts it. It felt very much as if it never occurred to him that this had to be explained.

And I found this very peculiar, because C.S. Lewis was by all accounts an atheist, and he was brought to believe in all these things. How did this happen? I feel as though he must have had more of a story to tell, because the argument he lays out is completely insufficient to take an intelligent person from atheism to Christianity. Even if his initial arguments had been sound, there just wasn’t a chain of logic available to bring an atheist any further than a sort of nebulous proto-Judeo-Christian monotheism with no specifics of ritual or dogma, let alone such esoteric notions as the Trinity (which, by the way, he explains in lucid, wonderful metaphor that he completely neglects to show to be equivalent to any underlying reality). I supppose Lewis, if he was an atheist before, must not have reached that point by skepticism so much as more specific disappointment with points of dogma.

The part of the entire book that I found the most rewarding to read was, and this might surprise you, the two chapters on Faith. Now, I make it no secret that I regard the concept of faith with derision and contempt—faith, as I generally see it used and defined, refers to belief without evidence, and in some circles (particularly US fundamentalists) even belief in spite of evidence, which is lunacy and the least ethical and virtuous thing you can possibly do without involving others. However, C.S. Lewis defines faith very differently. I can do the concept no better justice than to quote him:

Roughly speaking, the word Faith seems to be used by Christians in two senses or on two levels, and I will take them in turn. In the first sense it means simply Belief—accepting or regarding as true the doctrines of Christianity. That is fairly simple. But what does puzzle people-at least it used to puzzle me—is the fact that Christians regard faith in this sense as a virtue. I used to ask how on earth it can be a virtue—what is there moral or immoral about believing or not believing a set of statements? Obviously, I used to say, a sane man accepts or rejects any statement, not because he wants to or does not want to, but because the evidence seems to him good or bad. If he were mistaken about the goodness or badness of the evidence that would not mean he was a bad man, but only that he was not very clever. And if he thought the evidence bad but tried to force himself to believe in spite of it, that would be merely stupid.

Well, I think I still take that view. But what I did not see then—and a good many people do not see still—was this. I was assuming that if the human mind once accepts a thing as true it will automatically go on regarding it as true, until some real reason for reconsidering it turns up. In fact, I was assuming that the human mind is completely ruled by reason. But that is not so. For example, my reason is perfectly convinced by good evidence that anaesthetics do not smother me and that properly trained surgeons do not start operating until I am unconscious. But that does not alter the fact that when they have me down on the table and clap their horrible mask over my face, a mere childish panic begins inside me. I start thinking I am going to choke, and I am afraid they will start cutting me up before I am properly under. In other words, I lose my faith in anaesthetics. It is not reason that is taking away my faith: on the contrary, my faith is based on reason. It is my imagination and emotions. The battle is between faith and reason on one side and emotion and imagination on the other.

With this second definition of the word faith, it actually makes sense. What this teaches me is that when I next meet someone extolling the virtues of faith, I need to explicitly establish what, precisely, this person means, because he or she may not be referring to it in the sense that I am used to encountering it. If someone believes in the virtues of faith¹, they are beneath being reasoned with. Faith², on the other hand, is in fact a positive thing! I do not need to be persuaded of its virtue; I agree with it! On the other hand, faith² is not a way in which religion can be reached. If somebody tells me that You won’t find God by evidence; you just have to have faith, they are using faith¹ and I will continue to dismiss them. If they take offence at this, I can now not only explain why, but also point out that C.S. Lewis regarded that claim as stupid.

Skeptical blogger Ziztur has a little project called Ray a Day wherein she (with the assistance of her boyfriend) go through one question a day from Ray Comfort’s book, You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can’t Make Him Think: Answers to Questions from Angry Skeptics. The other week, she circulated an email among her awesome commenters, in which number I have been granted the honour of inclusion.

Here’s my contribution, wherein I address Ray’s “answer” to a question challenging the existence of Hell, and muse a bit on the motivation underlying such unapologetic apologetics. Go read it, then read the rest of Ziztur’s blog.

Ray Comfort, the creationist dimwit behind the hilarious Atheist’s Nightmare video (and occasional enigma in the sense of Poe’s Law), has written a book that has garnered some pretty scathing reviews. He feels that the opposition is easily explained:

I simply expose atheistic evolution for the unscientific fairy tale that it is, and I do it with common logic. I ask questions about where the female came from for each species. Every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going. Evolution has no explanation for the female for every species in creation.

Most people who make strawman arguments at least try to make the strawman resemble the real argument. This person apparently believes that someone claims that males and females evolved independently. Alternatively, he realises how stupid an idea this is, but aims the book at an audience who will accept that argument at face value. Either way, we have a prime example of truly comical stupidity, whether in the author or the readers who buy the book; hopefully the former, as I would not wish such an epidemic of irredeemable cretinism to be widely spread.

When I clicked a link and was transported to a column on Proposition 8 by Orson Scott Card, I was fully prepared to be offended. I didn’t expect to be so amused. For a writer so erudite, his arguments are remarkably vacuous. I honestly expected him to make a good case for a bad cause—not so. How can the author of Ender’s Game produce such vacuous drivel?

The premise of this editorial is that he promised to write a set of secular arguments to ban gay marriage, since even he realises that non-Mormons won’t be convinced by We Mormons think God doesn’t like it. I will not quote it in full—you have the link above—but will cite the parts that made me want to burst out with derisive retorts.

Quoted and indented parts are from Mr. Card’s column; the commentary is mine.

The first and greatest threat from court decisions in California and Massachusetts, giving legal recognition to "gay marriage," is that it marks the end of democracy in America.

These judges are making new law without any democratic process; in fact, their decisions are striking down laws enacted by majority vote.

Democratic process is great. I really think that constitutional, representative democracy is the greatest…well, the least terrible political system anyone has ever invented. However, a constitutional democracy does not base all of its laws and decisions on popular vote—if it did, it wouldn’t need a constitution (except to codify voting procedures and ensure that they are binding). Any civilised democracy has laws in place to protect the rights of minorities lest they be oppressed by majorities sufficiently large to win elections. Unpopular minorities need this protection sometimes—like gays. Or Mormons.

We already know where these decisions lead. We have seen it with the court decisions legalizing abortion. At first, it was only early abortions; within a few years, though, any abortion up to the killing of a viable baby in mid-birth was made legal.

Really?

I presume that he’s talking about partial-birth abortions; it certainly sounds like it. Now, partial-birth abortion is a stupid term to begin with; it’s not a much of a medical term, but a political one popularised by the opponents of late-term abortions. During a partial-birth abortion, the fetus is removed via the cervix, the same path as a birth, but that doesn’t mean that natural birth has begun. It’s one of the procedures used for abortions after the 21^st week; it’s used in 15% of those cases. This means that it’s a procedure used for fetuses some of which don’t have any brain activity, let alone higher brain functions, consciousness, or anything psychologically human. Additionally, the procedure is used to remove fetuses that die of natural causes—it’s a method for removing a fetus, not killing it (although for abortive purposes, the fetus is of course killed before it is removed).

But Mr. Card’s rhetoric appears to take an already deliberately provocative term for this procedure and apply it by the most horrifying interpretation of the term itself, ignoring any facts about the procedure, to make it sound as though American courts allow doctors to murder infants in the delivery room (and of course legalising gay marriage leads down the same path). This isn’t merely dishonest; it’s ludicrous.

How dangerous is this, politically? Please remember that for the mildest of comments critical of the political agenda of homosexual activists, I have been called a "homophobe" for years.

This is a term that was invented to describe people with a pathological fear of homosexuals -- the kind of people who engage in acts of violence against gays. But the term was immediately extended to apply to anyone who opposed the homosexual activist agenda in any way.

A term that has mental-health implications (homophobe) is now routinely applied to anyone who deviates from the politically correct line. How long before opposing gay marriage, or refusing to recognize it, gets you officially classified as "mentally ill"?

I agree that it’s not a very accurate term. I commiserate. I feel the same way about using the term organic to mean not grown using chemically synthesised pesticides. However, given the prevalence of the terms in question, I think homophobe is roughly as subject to misunderstanding in context as the word organic applied in relation to produce.

Here's the irony: There is no branch of government with the authority to redefine marriage. Marriage is older than government. Its meaning is universal: It is the permanent or semipermanent bond between a man and a woman, establishing responsibilities between the couple and any children that ensue.

There we have it: The meaning of marriage is universal. For starters, it’s either permanent or not permanent. It’s between one man and one woman, or occasionally one man and multiple women. It doesn’t occur across racial barriers, or maybe it does; and the groom’s family always pays a price to buy the bride, or maybe the bride brings a dowry, or maybe neither happens.

Either way, you see what I mean: It’s universal.

The laws concerning marriage did not create marriage, they merely attempted to solve problems in such areas as inheritance, property, paternity, divorce, adoption and so on.

[...]

No matter how sexually attracted a man might be toward other men, or a woman toward other women, and no matter how close the bonds of affection and friendship might be within same-sex couples, there is no act of court or Congress that can make these relationships the same as the coupling between a man and a woman.

the same ≠ morally equivalent ≠ legally equivalent

Women are not the same as men; does that mean they should not have equal rights? Black people aren’t the same as white people; does that mean they should not have equal rights?

There is no natural method by which two males or two females can create offspring in which both partners contribute genetically. This is not subject to legislation, let alone fashionable opinion.

Thanks for telling us this. I’m sure the world was just about dying from uncertainty on this matter.

That many individuals suffer from sex-role dysfunctions does not change the fact that only heterosexual mating can result in families where a father and a mother collaborate in rearing children that share a genetic contribution from both parents.

Ah, there we have it! Only heterosexual couples (out of all couples) can produce and rear children (factually true, I agree); therefore, because X, only heterosexual couples should be allowed to marry.

The only X that makes this argument hold is X = only couples likely (or at least able) to produce and rear children should be allowed to marry. Clearly, this must be Mr. Card’s position.

When a heterosexual couple cannot have children, their faithful marriage still affirms, in the eyes of other people's children, the universality of the pattern of marriage.

…What, are we making exceptions already? Even though marriage is for procreation only is the only logical piece that fits, we are to make an exception because it’s just so important that children realise that, universally, marriages are usually between a man and one or more women, are or are not permanent, and do or do not entail the bride’s family, or possibly the groom’s family, paying a price?

Note also a rather sneaky introduction of the naturallistic fallacy here. Earlier, he was saying that this is what marriage is and has always been. Now, he proceeds as though he had established that this is what marriage should be. This does not follow from that.

We need the same public protection of marriage that we have of property. If we did not all agree that people continue to own things that are not in their immediate possession, then you could not reasonably expect to come home and find your house unoccupied.

We agree, by law, to make it a crime to take what belongs to others -- even when you need it more than they do. Every aspect of our lives is affected by this, and not for a moment could a society exist that did not protect the right of property.

Marriage is, if anything, more vital, more central, than property.

Husbands need to have the whole society agree that when they marry, their wives are off limits to all other males. He has a right to trust that all his wife's children would be his.

Wives need to have the whole society agree that when they marry, their husband is off limits to all other females. All of his protection and earning power will be devoted to her and her children, and will not be divided with other women and their children.

Apart from the rather obvious conclusions that men own women, and women are exclusive property and protegées of men (in spite of some of the universally identical marriages being polygynous, including within Mr. Card’s own deranged religion), I suppose the point is that (as Jesus taught us, maybe?) we shouldn’t really care about other people’s children, and (literal) bastards deserve no consideration whatsoever, because all that is important for a child to matter to a parent is genetic proximity.

Wait, wasn’t he saying something about adopted children? (Okay, you may not know this—I didn’t bother to cite it. You can check the article, or take my word when I say that Mr. Card is A-OK with adoption.) How does this tie into a necessity that the children he raise be biologically his?

These two premises are so basic that they preexist any known government. In most societies through history, failure to live up to these commitments has led to extreme social sanctions -- even, in many cases, death.

And if people two thousand years ago killed people for it, it must be morally wrong.

Only when the marriage of heterosexuals has the support of the whole society can we have our best hope of raising each new generation to aspire to continue our civilization -- including the custom of marriage.

Rephrased in semi-symbolic logic:

Only if X is supported by society will society continue to value X.

Similarly, an old-time southerner might say, Only when the segregation of blacks and whites has the support of the whole society can we have our best hope of raising each new generation to aspire to continue our civilization -- including the custom of racial segregation.

Because when government is the enemy of marriage, then the people who are actually creating successful marriages have no choice but to change governments, by whatever means is made possible or necessary.

Am I to understand that Mr. Card feels that civil war is a price he’s willing to pay to stop gay people who love each other from achieving legal rights commensurate with those of straight people who love each other?

Society gains no benefit whatsoever (except for a momentary warm feeling about how "fair" and "compassionate" we are) from renaming homosexual liaisons and friendships as marriage.

Aren’t justice and compassion held to be rather high virtues in most moral systems, including both secular humanism and most Christian sects? I suppose Mormons are different. Personally, I disagree; I think that justice and compassion are worth making sacrifices for, so that even if gay marriage were detrimental for society as a whole—which I do not believe for a moment—I expect I should still continue to support it, because some goods come only at a price.

Benjamin Franklin said it well: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. I rank justice right up there with liberty, and consider compassion to be a pretty high virtue, as well.

Married people attempting to raise children with the hope that they, in turn, will be reproductively successful, have every reason to oppose the normalization of homosexual unions.

…Because gay marriage causes infertility and/or low sperm count in straight people?

It's about grandchildren. That's what all life is about. It's not enough just to spawn -- your offspring must grow up in circumstances that will maximize their reproductive opportunities.

Personally, I think that life is about a lot of things other than reproducing. Indeed, I think that anyone who disagrees with me is an immoral and frankly terrible person. I also note that a straightforward implication of what Mr. Card here suggests is that infertile and sterile people have no purpose in life.

In a strict biological sense—if we speak of meaning in life strictly in terms of biological imperative—then he’s closer to being right (still wrong, of course, but not nearly as wrong). However, I thought we were talking about morality, which usually includes concepts like rising above our animal nature (to borrow a tedious cliché).

How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.

Yes, I guess he is advocating revolution and civil war to stop the gays. He seems rather less sane than I thought, and I wasn’t being generous to begin with.

Biological imperatives trump laws.

Then jealousy and rage trump laws against murder. Greed and desire trump laws against rape and theft. This isn’t a recipe for morality, but for anarchy, a Hobbesian State of Nature where life is nasty, brutish, and short.

I knew that Orson Scott Card was a man I profoundly disapprove of and disagree with, due to opinions he holds on religious grounds. However, if this is the best effort he can make to frame our arguments in completely secular terms; if this is an example of what he considers his compelling secular arguments in favor of giving permanent heterosexual pairings a monopoly on legally recognized status in all societies, then he’s not just blinded by religion—as many otherwise intelligent people are, compartmentalising their beliefs—he is also quite incapable of logic, stupid, and possibly insane.

Prelude (this post isn't really about parrots): Because I like parrots, because I like to be prepared, because I am fond of knowledge, and because it is a way of living vicariously through strangers, I frequent a couple of webforums dedicated to discussing said birds. Because I am who I am, what I am, and the way I am, it's probably fair to say that a few of the discussions I enter end up less ‘discussions’ than ‘debates’. It's not just me, though—there are some definite hot-button issues, and one of them is crossbreeding different species (hybreeding as some people call it, probably more due to poor spelling than clever coining of terminology).

Think what you will of the pros and cons (or harbour no opinions at all), my basic stance is that (ignoring conservationist issues for the moment) the important consideration is whether it is cruel or kind to the animals. After all, if you breed pets, just as if you own pets, you owe it to the animals to make their captive existence a good one, and breeding unhealthy animals merely to satisfy human aesthetics reeks of unnecessary suffering to me—Persian cats, deaf Dalmatians, many dogs prone to hip dysplasia, whatever kills English Budgies younger than the wild genotype…the list could be made quite lengthy (but mindful of you, o humble reader, I shan't make it so).

Imagine my horror, then, upon encountering this ill-conceived sentiment:

All I can say is that God made humans and the animals. God is THE top engineer. If he didnt want it to mix he makes it genetically impossible (ie: humans and animals) He also made Man the keeper and caretaker of all the animals. ALL of them, he gave us brains to think, study and create.

Ignore the spelling and grammar for now. Ignore also the religious sentiments, because for the purposes of this discussion (and of that discussion), it doesn't matter whether life evolved naturally or under the guidance of some magical entity that wanted it this way. The simple and obvious fact of the matter is that either way, life is full of very nasty things, from anthrax spores to intestinal parasites, birth defects and cancer; the naturalistic fallacy gains nothing from being dressed up in holy robes. Of course, I spelled this out—and of course, the poster in question seems quite immune to reason, but I chiefly wrote it in the hope that someone less committed to fallacy will be swayed by it.

What I didn't say over there, because it would be a little too inflammatory and distract from the real subject (what was important there), is what disturbed me most about the cited sentiment: It is a total abdication of moral responsibility. The individual I quoted breeds animals, and takes the moral position that it is physically impossible for her to do wrong in so doing—the corollary is presumably that she therefore doesn't need to think about whether it's good or bad, because—it's impossible for it to be bad. (If you sense a minute earthquake just as you read these words, I suppose I am wrong and there is an afterlife—that'll be Ayn Rand, spinning in her grave.)

This crystallises exactly what I despise about even the non-violent manifestations of dogmatic religion. God wills it—case closed. No need for such a believer to exercise judgement, no need to carefully consider your actions, no need to analyse your own behaviour and check your motivations—most of all, no need to check whether your motivations ultimately result in harmful consequences! After all, God makes it impossible to do wrong.

It is entirely likely that this person will never cause any greater evil as a consequence of this version of faith than cross-breeding two birds of too-far diverged genomes and create a generation or two of genetically unfortunate animals; it's quite likely that even this won't happen (this is a breeder of birds but not necessarily a breeder of hybrids, and hybridisation isn't necessarily a bad thing). But consider the morality of a person like this! Couple it with the very best intentions and the very greatest kindness, and such a person may well commit atrocities, because if you hold a deeply-felt belief that it is just not necessary to consider the consequences of your actions, you have no idea what evils you may do. You have blind-folded yourself to them.

In that famous paraphrasing of Voltaire,

Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.

Over at this blog, an anonymous poster quoth as follows below, and I find it strange and simultaneously amusing and disheartening that people apparently believe in this stuff, according to this reasoning.

Hi ReligionProf, I am paraklete from uncommondescent.com...

I really think that the mind-as-emergent property-of-matter view needs to be thought through some more. When we consider all the different views, from reductive materialism to dualism to emergentism, we need to bring in background information to help us determine which view makes the most sense. From what we know of matter, that it is basically "stuff" that follows natural laws, it is as you know very difficult to see how mental properties - non law like properties - could "emerge" from physical properties. This difficulty does not just appear to be our inability to imagine it, it seems to be based on the very nature of the two phenomena, mental and physical. Not only that, but there's the question of how a network of matter can unify itself into a single stream of consciousness - the "I".

Now on the flip side, when we consider dualism, I believe we have some interesting background information to consider. First, we have a virtually universal ability to conceive of minds without bodies. The vast majority of the world actually believes in minds without bodies, whether it be angels, demons, ghosts, dead ancestors, out of body experiences, and the near universal belief in life after death. Next, we have religious sources telling us about minds without bodies. From the Bible, which you cited regarding Adam, we have a consistent belief in dualism, contrary to what you stated. The psychosomatic unity conception does not at all contradict dualism, for there are forms of dualism that see a deep interweaving of the body and the soul, most notably Thomistic dualism, a view defended by J.P. Moreland in "Body and Soul." For a book that lays out the dualism found in the Bible, I recommend "Body, Soul, & Life Everlasting" by John W. Cooper. Indeed the Hebrew conception of Sheol clearly implies dualism. And Jesus himself was a dualist (e.g. Luke 16:19-31)

So in my opinion, I think the background information should lead us to a dualist view. The only criticism that I have seen against dualism is the "ghost in a box" argument, which basically asks how spiritual substances can interact with physical substances. There does not appear to be any mechansim linking the spiritual to the physical. But I think this is a weak objection, because a child has no problem conceiving of a spirit acting on the physical world, and never does a child think, "Wait, what mechanism is there for this interaction?" The demand for a mechanism is circular reasoning, I think, for a mechanism is itself a physiconcept.

Anyway, those are my thoughts, and I appreciate how you have shared your thoughts with a respectful tone.

Never mind the religious and supernatural implications. The true tragedy is that this is apparently what to some people passes for intellectual discourse.

This is a different kind of post altogether from what I have written before: Although I probably squeezed in a few new thoughts in some of the corners, this is mostly rehashing things that in my view are very obvious. I just want a post up to refer people to when those who choose to engage me in debate return to the same tired questions, because I quickly grow bored with responding to requests to explain in my own words what is wrong with Pascal's Wager, why it's not weird that people naturally fear death, and so forth. I will probably add to this debating FAQ if more such issues arise…

We are in a battle for the minds of men and women and boys and girls. To win, we must take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ, which means taking every thought captive to the teaching of His Word.

—Dr. Terry Mortenson¹, Answers in Genesis

The most blatant admission of and admonition for mind control that I've seen.

¹ Note that although Dr. Mortenson appears to have a real doctorate from a real university, it's in the history of geology (which he presumably knows), not geology itself (which…no, I can't even guess what goes on in the mind of a six-day creationist, if anything). If anyone should feel persuaded by the text, please talk to me; this is simple-minded enough that I can probably help cure you.