It can't be personal, because I don't personally know anybody who works for the NCAA, but I hate the organization as a whole because it reminds me so much of our federal government: it is a bloated bureaucracy that seems to exist only for making bizarre, arbitrary, and confusing decisions with enormous power over student-athletes, and zero accountability for those decisions. Don't believe me? Go to the NCAA website and try to figure out how to ask a person responsible for athlete eligibility a question. There aren't even any email addresses or phone numbers listed for their media resource contacts! What chance do you think a serious "blogger" might have getting his questions answered through the same NCAA media inquiry form used by an ESPN reporter? I'm guessing zero, but I went through the motions. For that reason, it was written on Monday but will be saved for publication until Tuesday, to give the NCAA an opportunity to respond. Though I don't expect the NCAA to even tell me the time of day, I'm going to follow the same protocol as any serious journalist and give the source an opportunity to respond before I rip them to shreds. The deadline came and went without my question answered: "Why was Luke Ford's appeal denied?" Oh, how do I hate the NCAA? Let me count the ways, using a baseball analogy to talk about football: Strike 1: Kolton Houston is forced by the NCAA to undergo elective surgery to remedy a doctor's mistake in order to become eligible to play for the University of Georgia. Houston received an injection by a doctor of a banned substance to … [Read more...]
The reality of miracles
Landen Hoffman About a month or so ago, my life dramatically improved after I basically stopped arguing with people on social media. First I announced that I was leaving Facebook entirely, only to have my wife talk me out of it, by surprise. But I did hold true to my promise to remove myself from all the "debate" forums where I wasted WAY too much of my life in ultimately fruitless conversations with people uninterested in reason and evidence when it might have an adverse effect on their current thinking. In fact, one of the most ridiculous arguments that I have had to deal with during my time spent as a Christian pugilist (never been very apologetic about my own thoughts and opinions) on the internet has been the claim by a few of the more outspoken atheists that miracles do not ever occur because God does not exist. It is ridiculous to argue about miracles because (a.) the definition of one is nebulous and (b.) people who don't believe in miracles can easily reject them as failing to meet their nonexistent criteria for one. To an atheist, a miracle probably requires them to see a physical manifestation of divine intervention, and even then they might dismiss their witness of a miracle as a hallucination their mind imagined because most atheists don't want to believe in God. Why would I say that? It sounds kind of harsh and judgmental, I suppose, but I said it because it is true. Atheists have made up their mind, and just like everybody else, they don't want to be wrong. This explains why there are so many atheists wasting their lives on social media arguing with … [Read more...]
The conceit of belief
A recent article I wrote titled "Anecdotes versus evidence" tried to explain the difference between an interesting story with an extraordinary claim and real evidence of a phenomena obtained via the scientific method. Quite predictably, there was a critic lurking on social media who wanted to challenge the crux of the article without bothering to evaluate the content. In the article I had listed three specific examples of extraordinary claims that apparently could be evaluated using credible scientific evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt that strict materialism was false, and that the metaphysical mind can learn new information even when temporarily separated from the physical brain. The idea behind writing the article was to provide the information and people who disagreed with me could fairly evaluate the same evidence and argue my interpretation of what the evidence meant. This critic merely assumed the evidence to which I referred was no better than any other alleged evidence he'd ever seen, and refused to look at the evidence I had offered. Instead, he wanted to challenge my methodology so he could downgrade the evidence back to only anecdote. My answer was quick and easy: I had actually looked at the evidence. I didn't just make an assumption. The direction of his line of inquiry soon became clear: my critic wanted me to acknowledge that I was simply taking the word of witnesses as gospel truth without questioning their veracity. That will only work if we apply the same standard in every situation. How do we know anything is true? The reality is … [Read more...]
Manufactured malignant hate
My favorite bumper sticker from the previous election cycle. These are extremely difficult times. It's impossible to understand why someone would intentionally fly an airplane into a building in order to kill thousands of people at once, and yet it has happened. Why does someone become so angry that he wants to randomly spray bullets into a crowd of innocent bystanders, or people at a music concert? Why would someone rent a truck and deliberately run over pedestrians out for a walk, killing women and children? Has the world gone completely mad? Actually, I believe millions of people have lost their minds, for the most part. The remainder of this article will list the primary reasons I'm making that claim. The more important question is why have so many people become irrationally angry? I've decided to blame three primary sources of manufactured outrage and hate: academia, the media, and politics. Faculty at major colleges and universities are overwhelmingly dominated by liberals who are political activists and literally won't permit conservative thought on campus. As a result, current generations are no longer acquiring useful and relevant knowledge through advanced education. Instead, students are being indoctrinated into liberal groupthink, and most are incapable of logic, reason, or independent thought. The college campus has not only been declared a "gun-free" zone (except for armed robbers there to prey on unarmed students) but free speech has been limited to designated areas. Conservative thought (including logic and reason) has been virtually banned, … [Read more...]
Anecdotes versus evidence
A strict materialist believes that our existence is limited to our physical bodies. They do not believe in God, Satan, heaven, hell, life after death, the near death experience, ghosts, angels, demons, spirits, souls, or any sort of supernatural phenomena. Not every atheist is a strict materialist, but by definition, strict materials are always atheists. To which I say, fine. Believe whatever you want, because you have free will. It isn't my job nor my responsibility to change your mind. As long as you can refrain from making any claims about the superiority of your beliefs over mine, we'll get along just fine. When a strict materialist makes an epistemic claim, it is typically their own personal belief incorrectly presented as fact. Whenever that situation occurs, I must offer strenuous objections because anecdotes should never be confused for scientific evidence and of all people, the strict materialist should already know this because they've told me as much on countless occasions. Personal beliefs should never be argued to be indisputable facts. Anecdotes might be interesting stories, but they will never be evidence to you unless they are your stories culled from your own personal experience and observation. If I tell you that I saw something, it's merely an anecdote. However, if you personally witness an event, it is your personal experience, and observation is a key component of the scientific method. Conversely, if you tell me that you saw something, it is still only an anecdote. However, if I observe the same thing you do, I have become a corroborating … [Read more...]
