I came across a copy of Jim Marrs’ Rule By Secrecy the other day. Towards the end of the book, the author makes passing reference to an interesting question that may or may not have implications for the conventional evolutionary narrative. Since I’m neither an “evolutionist” or “YEC”, don’t interpret this as an attack on the former or an endorsement of the latter. When it comes to the evolution vs. creation debate, the only thing I hold to is that God created. I don’t know how, or how long it took—and unlike the staunch supporters on either side, I won’t pretend to know. That said, Marrs writes:
The more haters hate, the more they prove the truth of God’s Word:
Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. (Matthew 5: 11,12)
Enter hater extraordinaire, Stephen R. Diamond:
Jim of Reason vs. Apologetics offers a series of thought experiments titled Proof of God’s Existence to explore the epistemic parameters of what he calls “common sense inquiry.” He identifies they ways people assess evidence and probability in everyday affairs and suggests that common sense inquiry is grounds for skepticism.
This is my sixth response to jim's series, Proof of God's Existence.
jim spent the first few paragraphs of The Party arguing that science arose from our need to perceive the world as it really is. For example,
All of us want to be objective. That is, we all want to see the world for what it truly is. … This is why we have science. Science is that small part of us that wants to get a handle on how the world REALLY operates. To garner a bird’s eye viewpoint unclouded by ignorance, or purely emotional concerns, or simply by the unwieldiness of way too much information. Science is a process by which we seek to see more clearly and completely.
I would agree with jim there, and would add that granted the methodologies are different, I believe that's why we have philosophy and religion, too. jim went on to create what I saw as a meaningful distinction between the commonplace "little science" normal people use every day, and the not-so-commonplace "Big Science" that professional scientists engage in under controlled circumstances. I took jim's "little science" to be categorically analogous to the "common sense inquiry" he alluded to in the Introduction, and all of this built to the following question:
My ears had been burning: I just knew on faith that ol' jim had somethin' nasty brewin' over there! He'd been way too quiet lately. He's written a letter to Team Scarlet A, an open invitation to a pact of ignorance amongst the likeminded:
What I’d like to suggest is a pact amongst the likeminded – the ‘haters’ as cl surely would dub us – to simply ignore the guy. I know, I know! LOL! Easy to say, yes? But it’s become absolutely crystal clear to me that cl does not have the ability to play well with others. At least, not with those who seriously challenge him.
–jim, reason vs. apologetics
Well, where to start? First, I like the use of the word "likeminded" and think it's an especially useful adjective for describing Team Scarlet A. Second, jim saying that I lack the ability to play well would be hilarious were it not for statements like these from him:
You're nothing but a big baby, cl. Put up or shut up, ya wuss… Suck THAT ass, you internet miscreant. Grow some.
–jim, reason vs. apologetics
jim at RvA has responded to Asteroids, Cathode Rays & Requisite Knowledge, Pt. II, and once again, my response follows.
jim has challenged me to what he offers as a "better way to debate." He's written a rebuttal to last week's post Asteroids, Cathode Rays & Requisite Knowledge, and invited me to write a response to his rebuttal, which he's agreed to post in its original entirety on his blog.
I accepted the challenge, and my response follows.