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...]
Vincible Ignorance
Physicist Sean Carroll An article at American Thinker about conspiracy theories and the moon landing caught my attention when the term vincible ignorance was introduced and defined as the "stubborn resistance to the truth and refusal to accept it, no matter how overwhelming the evidence in its favor is." Coined with the intention of being applied to various positions on Catholic dogma, the terminology has useful application in a more secular context. Invincible ignorance has been defined as an unknown that can never be known. A secular example of invincible ignorance might be the conditions that existed prior to the Big Bang singularity--we "know" the universe had an origin because we've been told evidence for the Big Bang exists, called redshift and cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB). The consensus of physicists (although consensus is not science) is that a very small, highly condensed dot of material rapidly expanded to become this universe. We don't know what existed prior to the Big Bang. We can only guess and speculate. It would be an example of vincible ignorance to know about redshift and CMB evidence and still reject the Big Bang evidence in favor of the steady state (eternal, unchanging universe) hypothesis. While similar to the phrase I began using a while ago, the subtle difference between vincible ignorance and willful ignorance is knowing and rejecting the truth as opposed to simply avoiding it. The distinction appears to be useful, to be sure. For example several years ago, while participating on an internet panel to discuss his … [Read more...]
Quantum memories
Michaela Chatterjee A pleasant family vacation ended abruptly with an unpleasant outcome for seventeen-year-old Michaela (Roser) Chatterjee. In the blink of an eye, a relaxing drive back home turned into a horrific car accident, followed by the chaotic scramble of a life flight via helicopter to emergency surgery. Another driver had panicked at the sight of oncoming traffic while trying to pass on a hill and smashed into the family vehicle, forcing them under the trailer of an eighteen wheeler. Three medical evacuation helicopters and five ambulances were called to the scene. Michaela’s injuries were by far the most serious. Her facial wounds looked particularly gruesome. A deep laceration extended across her forehead and ripped into her right eyelid, exposing two inches of skull and her eyeball. Her bicep was completely severed when her left arm smashed through the rear windshield. As a result, Michaela had gone into shock. The force of impact had been so great that she suffered a diffuse axonal injury to her brain, meaning her brain literally sheared and twisted inside her cranium, creating a blood clot. Fortunately for Michaela, the accident occurred only two miles from the personal residence of emergency room physician Scott Magley. He arrived at the scene and began administering first aid. Michaela flat lined on the flight to the hospital despite Dr. Magley’s best efforts to save her. Michaela was so badly injured that Dr. Magley was able to intubate her without anesthesia. Due to the severity of her brain injury, she remained … [Read more...]
Supernatural evidence
[AUTHOR'S NOTE: This is (I think) the fifth installment in the series originally published several years ago, during my tenure as the Atlanta Creationism Examiner. Minor editing and re-formatting to accommodate the differences between the old and new platform have been done on every article, but the original content has otherwise remained unchanged. ] Supernatural evidence We have examined the few real "facts" of evolution. Then we reviewed the conjecture about evolution expressed in the theories of Charles Darwin. Then I suggested an alternative to Darwin's theory of natural selection (evolution theory) which I have called Iterative Creation (IC). And of course, we talked about DNA as a unique and dynamically generated source code for the creation of a new living organism. The remaining question left unasked thus far: is evolution theory clearly superior to IC? Are the theories equally unprovable, or does IC actually hold some advantage over evolution theory? The only way evolution theory can be considered superior to IC is by resorting to scientism. By asserting that evidence somehow "belongs" to science would imply IC can't use the same evidence, presumably because a different standard for scientific method is applied to each theory. At the heart of any scientific argument against any form of creation lies the postulate that a supernatural God is simply impossible to believe. This is a very important point. God is derisively referred to “an invisible man in the sky” by my atheist friends, as a legend or fairy tale. Tales of NDEs and other … [Read more...]
Lying for Jesus
If the ability to annoy atheists actually produced income, my personal wealth might rival that of Warren Buffett and Bill Gates. I don't even have to try hard. Merely expressing my opinion does the trick just about every time. Annoying atheists seems to be a talent that comes quite naturally, about as difficult for me as breathing. Of course, it isn't my intention to anger people that I've more than likely never met face-to-face, but often it can't be helped. My only alternative would be to remain silent about what I believe to be truth and keep my opinions to myself. However, we independent authors are expected to promote our own books, aren't we? How else might readers discover my work? A nonfiction book with a title such as Counterargument for God shouldn't leave much to the reader's imagination about where I stand on the subject of theology any more than Christopher Hitchen's book God is Not Great, or The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. Now I don't consider myself a Christian apologist (even though I freely admit that I am a Christian) because I rarely if ever use theology to argue against atheism -- I prefer using clear logic, scientific evidence, an understanding of statistics and probability, and good, old-fashioned common sense to illogical arguments and Bible thumping. The (shorter) second section of my book defends my Christian beliefs (and the Bible, to some degree) against the most popular attacks used by prominent atheists like Dan Barker of the Freedom From Religion Foundation and David Silverman of American Atheists. When I "attack" atheism … [Read more...]
