Quodlibeta

Vallicella on Plantinga on Science and Religion

noreply@blogger.com (Jim S.) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 20:30:00 +0000

Bill Vallicella has been reading Alvin Plantinga's new book Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism and posting reviews of it chapter by chapter. Here are the links so far; I'll update this post as more are forthcoming.

Notes on the Preface
Notes on Chapter One
Plantinga versus Dawkins: Organized Complexity

(cross-posted at Agent Intellect)

Discuss this post at the Quodlibeta Forum

Why Recessions Happen

noreply@blogger.com (James) — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 17:44:00 +0000

Most commentators in the media seem to imagine that recessions can be avoided. The former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown even turned this delusion into a political slogan: “No more boom and bust”. Of course, particular recessions have particular proximate causes. The subprime crisis was the catalyst that kicked off the great recession we still have not quite got behind us. But that was not why it happened. After all, the sovereign defaults and the LTCM collapse in 1998 didn’t cause a recession. Nor did the dotcom crash of the early noughties. So you need to look a bit deeper to understand why recessions happen and why they cannot be avoided.

Here’s my theory (which I very much doubt has the merit of originality). I call it the theory of crud. Actually, I don’t. But the word I use instead of crud isn’t appropriate for a family blog.

When economies are growing, we can get away with quite a lot. If you have an underperforming employee, then firing them is probably more trouble than it is worth if your business is still making lots of money. Innovation is risky and there is little point in it if you can make money doing what you’ve always done. This is human nature.

Economic growth will also resist measures that might be expected to stifle it. Government regulation and taxation, as well as high debt levels, are cases in point. A growing economy allows us to feel we can take on more debt than is prudent. It encourages governments to increase public spending to look after their clients and stay in power. So they raise taxes, so removing money from productive uses in the private sector to unproductive ones in the public sector. Governments also get themselves into debt more than they can afford. Growing economies let them (and us) get away with mortgaging the future.

Over-regulation is even worse. It is essentially a form of taxation whereby money is moved from productive sources into the hands of compliance officers and inspectors who are often, but not always, in the public sector. But regulation is also less obvious and can be disguised as a good thing when it purports to improve health and safety; or the environment or whatever. This makes getting rid of red tape an enormous challenge. When an economy is growing, no one can be bothered. Protectionist policies are the same. Free trade is a hard sell.

And it gets worse. A growing economy lets people make colossal and stupid mistakes without being punished. Utterly insane ideas, like joining Europe’s disparate economies into a single currency or giving up fossil fuels, can appear to be working when the damage they do is hidden under economic growth.

Crud is what I call all this taxation, petty rules, overhanging credit and stupidity. It jams the works of the economy like sand in a machine, wearing down the gears and gradually making the whole mechanism less efficient. But when the wheels are turning, they can overcome this resistance. The crud continues to build up, week by week, but while the machine works, it is worth nobody’s while to do the hard work of clearing it out. Things are obviously much less efficient than they should be, but they still work enough for people to pretend everything is fine.

But eventually, the crud has built up to such a level that it causes serious damage. Important works clog up. Gearwheels crack under the strain of turning through the rubbish around them. The machine judders to a halt. A recession begins. Exactly where and when this happens is essentially random. But a time comes when an economy is simply not functioning well enough to overcome a shock. Only then does the clear-up begin.

That’s what makes recessions so painful. All those decisions that were put off when times were good can no longer be avoided. The shirking employees have to go; the debt must be repaid. Idiocies like the Euro show their true colours. The engine of the economy has to be steam-cleaned at vast expense and discomfort. By the way, the recession we have just had was so deep and prolonged not because of wicked bankers. It was just that long boom from 1990 to 2008 gave us so many opportunities to accumulate crud. Getting things going with so much junk in the system is extra-hard.

And there is an added danger. The recession can lead people to demand even more regulation and red tape in the ignorant belief that this prevents rather than causes economic reverses. Keynesians cry that we have to shovel even more crud into the system to get it going again. Roosevelt’s famous New Deal is now known to have made the depression of the 1930s even worse than it needed to be. And here’s why: the New Deal just showered crud over everyone. Sadly, the only way to get the economy moving again is paying down the debt, tearing up the regulations, slimming down the workforce and keeping markets open for business.

So, in summary, we get recessions because capitalism works. Capitalism generates economic growth. When things are good, human beings have a natural tendency to avert their eyes from future problems. But eventually we just have to roll up our sleeves up and carry out the necessary spring cleaning. The very worst thing we can do is pile up more debt, bring out new rules, raise taxes even higher and erect trade barriers.

Discuss this post at the Quodlibeta Forum

Hmmm...

noreply@blogger.com (Jim S.) — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 14:16:00 +0000

Chemical and Engineering News has an interesting review of Dawkins' childrens book The Magic of Reality. Part of what makes the review interesting is that one of the authors is seven years old.

Discuss this post at the Quodlibeta Forum

Multiversial Musings

noreply@blogger.com (Jim S.) — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 06:51:00 +0000

The multiverse, or many worlds hypothesis, is the idea that there is a trans-universe universe which is constantly giving birth to little universes, of which we are one. Its relevance for science and religion is that it is an attempt to obviate both cosmological arguments and teleological arguments. It obviates some cosmological arguments by saying that our universe's beginning with the Big Bang was not an ultimate beginning, but merely the beginning of one of many universes, brought about by natural processes (where "natural" is defined in reference to the multiverse). It obviates teleological arguments by saying that, given an innumerable or infinite number of universes, there is bound to be one that has the right conditions for life and in which life originates and evolves. I discussed the multiverse hypothesis before here and here.

The multiverse is certainly a very clever idea. However there are a few problems with using it to avoid these theistic arguments. Before I get into them, though, I'd like to make two points that aren't objections so much as interesting postulates. First, as I point out here, the multiverse can be used to obviate the argument that the occurrence of evil is incompatible with God's existence just as much as it can be used to obviate cosmological and teleological arguments. So if we use it to take away some reasons for believing in God, we can also use it to take away some reasons for not believing in God. Second, the multiverse hypothesis, if successful, would negate cosmological arguments based on the universe having a beginning and all teleological arguments. Yet these arguments have been around for millennia and I'm unaware of anyone employing a multiverse concept to get around them. Of course this doesn't mean it's false, but perhaps it should make us a little suspicious.

Anyway, here are the problems, as I see them, with using the multiversial to avoid theistic arguments.

1. The multiverse is just as metaphysical an explanation as the claim that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Appealing to the multiverse's natural processes in order to account for our universe's origin does not make it a physical explanation, since those processes transcend the processes of the matter, energy, space, and time that make up our universe.

2. No one has yet been able to produce a model for a multiverse that does not itself have a beginning. So it doesn't really remove the necessity of an ultimate cosmic origin, it just pushes it one step back.

3. At any rate, cosmological arguments did not originate with the discovery of the Big Bang. They have been defended for millennia based on the mathematical problems that arise if we posit an actual infinite amount of things. In order for the multiverse to not have a beginning itself, it would entail an actual infinite number of cause-and-effect events, and so the mathematical problems are still applicable.

4. Ockham's Razor plays havoc with the multiverse. This is the claim that we should prefer simpler explanations that posit fewer entities over complex explanations that posit more entities. Ockham's Razor is one of the most important principles in science. In order to account for one universe having the right conditions for life the multiverse posits trillions or an infinite number of other universes. In contrast, the theistic explanation requires us to posit one further level of reality to this universe. If we have to choose between these two options, the claim that God created the universe wins hands down.

4.1. It may be objected that the God being posited, as the creator of the universe, would be enormously complex, and so Ockham's Razor, which prefers simpler explanations, would point us to the multiverse. This, however, misunderstands two things: first, in Ockham's Razor, "simple" does not mean ontologically simple, it means numerically simple. To put it another way, it is not a matter of qualitative complexity but of quantitative complexity. The Razor claims that, all things being equal, we should prefer explanations which posit the fewest number of entities. The multiverse posits innumerable other universes in order to explain this one. Theism posits one other realm of reality in order to explain it. We should prefer the latter over the former according to Ockham's Razor. Second, traditionally the God of theism has been conceived as being the simplest of all beings. This is known, not very imaginatively, as the doctrine of divine simplicity. So, even if we ignore the first point, theism is not positing a more ontologically complex explanation of the universe than is the multiverse.

4.2. It may be objected further that the multiverse is not really positing all these other universes as distinct entities, but as outgrowths of a single all-encompassing ur-cosmos. There are two problems with this: first, we can do the same thing with the theistic explanation. Our universe is a part of reality; the whole of reality includes God and everything else he has created. As C. S. Lewis put it in Miracles, atheists "have mistaken a partial system within reality, namely Nature, for the whole." Second, at any rate, this is not a viable strategy, since any charge that something conflicts with Ockham's Razor could be explained away by saying all the other entities being posited are just parts of a larger singular entity. In other words, if we say that the multiverse doesn't conflict with Ockham's Razor, nothing else does either. Ockham's Razor is defunct and empty. This is not a reasonable conclusion.

5. In addition to flying in the face of Ockham's Razor, the multiverse commits the inverse gambler's fallacy. This plays on the much more famous gambler's fallacy. If someone sees a coin being flipped a hundred times and it comes up heads each time, he commits the gambler's fallacy if he bets the coin will come up tails on the next flip because he thinks it's due. The inverse gambler's fallacy says that, regardless of the merits of the bet, the gambler is essentially assuming that if there were innumerable coins being flipped, one of them was bound to come up heads a hundred times in a row. Yet this would only be a viable explanation if the gambler had actually witnessed all these other coins coming up with all their other results. Without such observation, you're best off thinking that the coin-flips are fixed somehow. Similarly, if we find ourselves in a universe that meets just the right conditions for life, we're best off thinking that the game is rigged: the universe was made that way on purpose.

6. The multiverse hypothesis, by itself, is not sufficient to avoid the cosmological and teleological arguments. We must specify a multiverse of a particular type and character. This is problematic because the more conditions one has to add to the bare-bones multiverse, the more contrived or ad hoc it is; and the more ad hoc an explanation, the less likely it is true.

6.1. Having an infinite number of universes will not lead to one having the requisite conditions for life if they're all identical, or only vary within set limits. Why think this is not the case? Why assume that the universes spawned by the multiverse are sufficiently random so that they exhaust all possibilities -- or at least the possibilities that entail one universe being hospitable to life?

6.2. For that matter, why assume that the multiverse spawns an infinite number of universes, or a number sufficient to make a biophilic universe possible? What if the multiverse only spawns 5,000 universes? Or 50? Or five? We have to specify a number of universes large enough to neutralize the incredibly high probabilities against a universe allowing the possibility of life, but we have no reason for assuming that a multiverse would have produced such an incredible number of universes.

7. Finally, given the multiverse, we should expect to find ourselves in a vastly different cosmos than the one in which we do, in fact, find ourselves. Roger Penrose points out in The Road to Reality that the odds of a universe having the low entropy condition that ours has is one in 10^10(123). The odds of our solar system coming together by the random collision of particles is one in 10¹⁰⁽⁶⁰⁾ -- enormously improbable, but "utter chicken feed" in comparison to the odds against the low entropy condition being met. In other words, a universe that consisted entirely of our solar system is vastly more probable than the actual universe we have. Or, alternately, solar system universes would be much more plentiful than universes like the one in which we live, so, given the multiverse, we should expect to find ourselves in a much different, a much smaller universe.

7.1. Let me put this another way. Some of the anthropic coincidences are necessary because of the effects they produce. Universes in which those effects are met directly rather than through an anthropic coincidence are, at least in some cases, more probable. For example, when the universe sprang into existence, the property of dark energy (the stretchiness of the space-time fabric) had to be precisely what it is in order for the universe to expand at just the right speed so that gravity didn't overpower it and collapse the universe but not so fast as to prevent stars and galaxies from forming. This property has to be fine-tuned to one part in 10¹²⁰. But a universe that just cuts to the chase and is created fully-formed with just one earth, one sun, and one moon would not need to meet this condition. So, all other things being equal, a smaller, simpler universe would be more likely than the universe we actually find ourselves in. Yet, superficially, such a universe would seem to be designed, moreso than ours. In fact, some people argue that if God really created the universe, we wouldn't expect it to be as expansive as it is; we should just expect the earth, sun, and moon (I think Stephen Hawking makes this point in A Brief History of Time, but I'm not sure). Such a universe, which would seem to bespeak of divine design, would be a much more likely product of a multiverse than the universe we actually have. In other words, our universe is much less plausibly explained via the multiverse hypothesis than a universe that critics of theism suggest would convince them of God's existence. This strikes me as a pretty big deal.

Now, all of this may suggest that I'm hostile to the multiverse. However, I'm only hostile to it as an alternate explanation of the universe's origin and apparent design. One of God's characteristics, at least the God of Judaism and Christianity, is that he loves to create. So it wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that there is more to reality than just two levels. To quote C. S. Lewis again:

...no man was, I suppose, ever so mad as to think that man, or all creation, filled the Divine Mind; if we are a small thing to space and time, space and time are a much smaller thing to God. It is a profound mistake to imagine that Christianity ever intended to dissipate the bewilderment and even the terror, the sense of our own nothingness, which come upon us when we think about the nature of things. It comes to intensify them. Without such sensations there is no religion.

So I have no problem with the claim that there are other universes, other realities, than our own; indeed, I would be surprised if there weren't (think of the Wood between the Worlds). Since this belief is rooted in my belief in God, however, it cannot be used to write him out of the picture. If God does not exist, I no longer have a reason for thinking there are other realities. But then the problem of the universe's origin and fine-tuning re-present themselves.

(cross-posted at Agent Intellect)

Discuss this post at the Quodlibeta Forum

Christmas Quote

noreply@blogger.com (Jim S.) — Sun, 25 Dec 2011 05:59:00 +0000

My friend Syd told me about the following intriguing quotation from The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King:

When Sam awoke, he found that he was lying on some soft bed, but over him gently swayed wide beechen boughs, and through their young leaves sunlight glimmered, green and gold. All the air was full of a sweet mingled scent.

He remembered that smell: the fragrance of Ithilien. 'Bless me!' he mused. 'How long have I been asleep?' For the scent had borne him back to the day when he had lit his little fire under the sunny bank; and for the moment all else between was out of waking memory. He stretched and drew a deep breath. 'Why, what a dream I've had!' he muttered. 'I am glad to wake!' He sat up and then he saw that Frodo was lying beside him and slept peacefully, one hand behind his head, and the other resting upon the coverlet. It was the right hand, and the third finger was missing.

Full memory flooded back, and Sam cried aloud: 'It wasn't a dream! Then where are we?'

And a voice spoke softly behind him: 'In the land of Ithilien, and in the keeping of the King; and he awaits you.' With that Gandalf stood before him, robed in white, his beard now gleaming like pure snow in the twinkling of the leafy sunlight. 'Well, Master Samwise, how do you feel?' he said.

But Sam lay back, and stared with open mouth, and for a moment, between bewilderment and great joy, he could not answer. At last he gasped: 'Gandalf! I thought you were dead! But then I thought I was dead myself. Is everything sad going to come untrue? What's happened to the world?'

'A great Shadow has departed,' said Gandalf, and then he laughed, and the sound was like music, or like water in a parched land; and as he listened the thought came to Sam that he had not heard laughter, the pure sound of merriment, for days upon days without count. It fell upon his ears like the echo of all the joys he had ever known. But he himself burst into tears. Then, as a sweet rain will pass down a wind of spring and the sun will shine out the clearer, his tears ceased, and his laughter welled up, and laughing he sprang from his bed.

'How do I feel?' he cried. 'Well, I don't know how to say it. I feel, I feel' -- he waved his arms in the air -- 'I feel like spring after winter, and sun on the leaves; and like trumpets and harps and all the songs I have ever heard!' He stopped and he turned towards his master. 'But how's Mr. Frodo?' he said. 'Isn't it a shame about his poor hand? But I hope he's all right otherwise. He's had a cruel time.'

'Yes, I am all right otherwise,' said Frodo, sitting up and laughing in his turn. 'I fell asleep again waiting for you, Sam, you sleepyhead. I was awake early this morning, and now it must be nearly noon.'

'Noon?' said Sam, trying to calculate. 'Noon of what day?'

'The fourteenth of the New Year,' said Gandalf; 'or if you like, the eighth day of April in the Shire reckoning. But in Gondor the New Year will always now begin upon the twenty-fifth of March when Sauron fell, and when you were brought out of the fire to the King. He has tended you, and now he awaits you. You shall eat and drink with him. When you are ready I will lead you to him.'

Syd pointed out an interesting thing about this passage. The day when "everything sad [is] going to come untrue" and when "A great Shadow has departed" is the 25th of March, a day we do not celebrate. Instead, we celebrate nine months later. And now the King who has tended and will tend us, and with whom we shall eat and drink, awaits us. "Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests".

(cross-posted at Agent Intellect)

Discuss this post at the Quodlibeta Forum

Christopher Hitchens - 1949-2011

noreply@blogger.com (Humphrey) — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 13:42:00 +0000

I was sad to read this morning that Christopher Hitchens lost his battle with cancer at the age of 62. I won't pretend I agreed with him on many things - in particular I found his treatment of history to be very one dimensional. None of that really mattered because of his panache and eloquence. His articles and his debates were always entertaining; even 'God is not Great' in places is the sort of rollicking good polemic which is so rare these days.

By way of tribute here is a young Christopher Hitchens debating foreign policy in the Reagan years and chain smoking (skip to 47.48 to see him deliver the Hitch smackdown on a caller).

Discuss this post at the Quodlibeta Forum

'This is a bogus statistic'

noreply@blogger.com (Humphrey) — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 18:46:00 +0000

A comment on one of my previous posts has alerted me to the fact that Steven Pinker has an FAQ up on his site concerning ‘Better Angels of our Nature’. None of the questions appear to take him to task for using made-up statistics. Some of the responses he gives are highly entertaining. For example when asked about ‘atheist regimes in the 20th century’ he says:

‘according to the most recent compendium of history’s worst atrocities, Matthew White's Great Big Book of Horrible Things (Norton, 2011), religions have been responsible for 13 of the 100 worst mass killings in history, resulting in 47 million deaths. Communism has been responsible for 6 mass killings and 67 million deaths. If defenders of religion want to crow, “We were only responsible for 47 million murders—Communism was worse!”, they are welcome to do so, but it is not an impressive argument.

Fourth, many religious massacres took place in centuries in which the world’s population was far smaller. Crusaders, for example, killed 1 million people in world of 400 million, for a genocide rate that exceeds that of the Nazi Holocaust. The death toll from the Thirty Years War was proportionally double that of World War I and in the range of World War II in Europe‘

Whether the Thirty Years War was more destructive than World War I and II is an interesting question; Germany and large parts of Central Europe undoubtedly suffered a demographic collapse in the 17th century (15-20% in the German States). However the overwhelming majority of deaths during the 30 Years’ War were caused by disease – specifically typhus, dysentery and bubonic plague. This situation was partially caused and exacerbated by the movement of the various armies through the German countryside – resulting in food shortages and the outbreak of epidemics. According to the detailed treatment given in Europe’s Tragedy by Peter H Wilson death records from towns appear to show few directly related to military violence and 30 years of warfare reaped around 450,000 military casualties.

It could be argued, in fact it should be argued that much of this mortality would not have happened were it not for the conflict - other areas of Europe suffered population declines in this period but not as precipitous as Germany’s – so there is a direct responsibility there and disease related deaths should be added to the tally. However if that is the case then you have to compare like with like. Close troop quarters and massive troop movements helped facilitate an influenza pandemic at the end of World War I – perhaps the greatest medical holocaust ever. Add these to the 15,000,000 slaughtered in World War and it becomes proportionally the deadliest conflict in world history.

In answer to another religion related question Pinker states:

‘Jesus deserves credit for stigmatizing revenge, one of the main motives for violence over the course of human history. But things started going downhill in 312 when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, and the historical facts are not consistent with the claim that Christianity since then has been a force for nonviolence:

The Crusaders perpetrated a century of genocides that murdered a million people, equivalent as a proportion of the world’s population at the time to the Nazi holocaust.

Shortly afterwards, the Cathars of southern France were exterminated in another Crusader genocide because they had embraced the Albigensian heresy.

The Inquisition, according to Rummel, killed 350,000 people.

Martin Luther’s rant against the Jews is barely distinguishable from the writings of Hitler.

The three founders of Protestantism, Luther, Calvin, and Henry VIII, had thousands of heretics were burned at the stake, as they and their followers took Jesus literally when he said, “If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.”

Following the biblical injunction, “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live,” Christians killed 60,000-100,000 accused witches in the European witchhunts.

The European Wars of Religion had death rates that were double that of World War I and that were in the range of World War II in Europe.

Christian conquistadors massacred and enslaved native Americans in vast numbers, and perhaps twenty million were killed in all (not counting unintentional epidemics) by the European settlement of the Americas.

World War I, as I recall, was a war fought mostly by Christians against Christians. As for World War II and its associated horrors, see my answer to the previous question.

I was pleased to see Pinker’s statistics on the witch hunts – 60,000 over 3 centuries - are reasonably accurate (on the internet you regularly see figures of 9 million waved about) One wouldn’t want to act as some kind of apologist for killing people for imaginary crimes, however the figures for the Inquisition are far too high – 10,000 over six centuries is a more credible estimate. As far as I can make out from a quick scout through ‘google books’ Henry VIII burned 81 heretics, Calvin burned 1 (Servetus) and Luther believed that burning heretics was against the will of the Holy Spirit, thus giving the softie a fat 0. Not a very impressive total for the 3 founders of Protestantism.

The most bogus figure of the lot is the (non-disease related) extermination of 20 million native Americans during the settlement of the Americas. Pinker appears to have got this number from White’s necrometrics – however as his discussion of it on his site shows he basically plucked the number out of thin air (he has taken the median of 4 clearly made up estimates). The conquest was often one of murderous oppression but the demographic collapse – 90% in some areas was as a result of epidemics. For example – the native population here in New England may well have been some 72,000 to 114,000 before colonisation. By 1670 that number had been reduced to only 8,600.

The decline was not the result of a genocide campaign, in fact, in the case of the Spanish the settlers were small in number and depended on native communities to build and sustain their colonies. As a result officials became concerned about the mortality that was occurring and passed edicts to protect natives from colonial excesses; they had become convinced by voices such as Las Casas who argued it was Spanish rule causing the disaster, not understanding the horrific role of disease. None of this probably sprang from any noble motive but it shows how tenuous the accusation of genocide is.

In answer to one question (I’ve read that at the beginning of the 20th century, ninety percent of deaths in warfare were suffered by soldiers, but at the end, ninety percent were suffered by civilians) Pinker writes:

‘This is a bogus statistic; see pp. 317–320

No – if you want to see a load of bogus statistics start at page 1 and keep reading till you get to page 832; then read the FAQ for good measure.

Discuss this post at the Quodlibeta Forum

How bad were the Mongols ?

noreply@blogger.com (Humphrey) — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 15:16:00 +0000

Separate piles of heads of men, women and children were built into pyramids; and even cats and dogs were killed in the streets.

Sayfi Heravi on the sacking of Naishapur

Exactly how nasty were the Mongols? Let’s be honest, they would probably be the last people in world history you would invite round for wine tasting and canapés. One famous anecdote concerning their rule for example claims that un-cooperative Russian nobles were assembled and forced to lie on the ground. A heavy wooden gate was then thrown on them and a table and chairs set up on the top side of the gate. Following this a victory banquet was thrown (which no doubt involved some stamping and enthusiastic dancing) and the unfortunate Russian princes were suffocated under the weight of the platform. Ironically, in doing so the Mongols were showing a certain degree of respect by not shedding noble blood; a similar principle was applied with the last Abbasid Caliph in Baghdad who was executed by being rolled in a carpet and kicked to death by horses.

In ‘The Better Angels of our Nature’ Stephen Pinker (quoting White’s estimates again) claims that the hordes of Genghis Khan and his successors managed to wipe out 40,000,000 people. This puts them at second in the all-time ‘Possibly the worst things people have done to each other’ list with an adjusted death toll of 298,000,000 (mid-20th century equivalent). Pinker writes:

The Mongol invasions of Islamic lands in the 13th century resulted in the massacre of 1.3 million people in the city of Merv alone, and another 800,000 residents of Baghdad. As the historian of the Mongols J. J. Saunders remarks "There is something indescribably revolting in the cold savagery with which the Mongols carried out their massacres. The inhabitants of a doomed town were obliged to assemble in a plain outside the walls, and each Mongol trooper, armed with a battle-axe, was told to kill so many people, ten, twenty or fifty. As proof that orders had been properly obeyed, the killers were sometimes required to cut off an ear from each victim, collect the ears in sacks, and bring them to their officers to be counted. A few days after the massacre, troops were sent back into the ruined city to search for any poor wretches who might be hiding in holes or cellars; these were dragged out and slain". The Mongols’ first leader, Genghis Khan, offered this reflection on the pleasures of life: “The greatest joy a man can know is to conquer his enemies and drive them before him. To ride their horses and take away their possessions. To see the faces of those who were dear to them bedewed with tears, and to clasp their wives and daughters in his arms.”[1]

How credible are such estimates? It is certainly plausible if we take the contemporary chroniclers such as Ibn al-Athir and Al-Nasawi at face value. These state the Mongol Army (estimated at perhaps 130,000 men) massacred hundreds of thousands and in some cases millions of people. 1,600,000 people were killed at the sack of Harat, and 1,747,000 at Nishapur (another source says 2,400,000). The Mongol leader Hulegu claimed in a letter to Louis IX of France that he killed two million people during the sack of Baghdad [2]. This would mean the Mongols were pulling off operations on the scale of the siege of Leningrad and the battle of Stalingrad regularly over the course of their conquests. According to Jack Weatherford in ‘Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World’ these figures are ‘preposterous’. David Morgan in ‘The Mongols’ is as sceptical, but less emphatic, regarding these estimates as not statistical information but instead ‘evidence of the state of mind created by the character of the Mongol invasion’.

Weatherford states that ‘conservative scholars place the number of dead from Genghis Khan’s invasion of central Asia at 15 million within five years’, however ‘even this more modest total…would require that each Mongol kill more than a hundred people’. If we took the chroniclers estimates, according to Weatherford this would mean ‘a slaughter of 350 people by every Mongol soldier’ (this would trump even the 87 people killed by Arnold Schwarzenegger during the course of the movie Commando).

Even so, it is somewhat glib to say that the chroniclers exaggerate – though this is often the case in ancient and medieval history [3]. One approach to determine their authenticity is to try to quantify exactly what the population of Central Asia was at the time. According to David Morgan this is difficult due to the lack of comprehensive Islamic archaeology and the fact that mud brick buildings do not respond well to repair. In many places however, such as at Harat it is possible to see where the pre Mongol walls stood – according to Morgan none of the sites appear to have been big enough to accommodate the populations noted in the sources; even under a siege where the population would have been swelled by refugees [4]. Another problem is that if we accept the contemporary figures then this would indicate the Mongols were outnumbered by ratios of 50-1 and you would think they would have greater success at fighting off their assailants.

Bernard Lewis and David Morgan state that the Mongol devastation was not universal. Only Transoxania and Khurasan had to suffer Mongol wrath at its worst whereas South Asia was never submitted to a full scale assault. Parts of Russia were devastated but some areas escaped lightly or completely [5]. The campaign against the Chin Empire in China was destructive but that later undertaken against the Sung was less so in order to take over as intact a country as possible,

The only way in which the 40 million figure given in ‘Better Angels of our Nature could be rendered plausible is if the statistics given for China from Sung and Chin times to after the expulsion of the Mongols in 1382 are accurate. These show a drop in population from 100 million to 70 million in 1290s [6] and 60 million in 1393 – a drop of 40 million. How responsible are the Mongols for this apparent holocaust?

We have already seen the problems with attempting to rely on the Chinese censuses which all too often appear to reflect the effectiveness of the central administration rather than the actual population. According to Timothy Brook in ‘The Troubled Empire’ many Chinese in Mongol areas were simply not reported, having been en-serfed and thus disappeared from the records altogether. Additionally the 14th century in China saw extensive flooding of the Yellow river and the subsequent famine, outbreaks of disease in the 1330s and a major outbreak of what is thought to have been the Black Death from 1353-4.[7] China in the 14th century experienced below average temperatures, harsh winters and a shorter growing season. The Yellow river flooded 6,000 square miles and 17 walled cities causing severe epidemics. Military disruption would have caused refugees to move south into communities where they would have been treated as transients and therefore not counted in taxation censuses.

What conclusions can be made – if any - on the extent of Mongol destructiveness? Certainly the invasions were appalling and exacted a heavy toll on agriculture and towns. Some modern studies tend to take a revisionist stress the positive aspects of Mongol rule, however as Hugh Kennedy remarks in Mongols, Huns and Vikings:

‘Revisionist historians have questioned the extent of Mongol ferocity and destructiveness, suggesting that such accounts are largely rhetoric and hyperbole. However, the weight of contemporary evidence is very strong and it is backed up by the archaeology. Of the great cities sacked by the Mongols, only Bukhara and Urgench were rebuilt on the same site: Balkh, Otrar and Nishapur were ruined for ever and at Merv a new town was founded two centuries later well away from the remains of the old. Samarkand was rebuilt outside the old walls while the ancient city remained as it is today, a desolate .waste of mud-brick ruins’.

Nonetheless – while the Mongols themselves would have been absolutely delighted to have been credited with the annihilation of 40 million people in the 13th century (around 9% of the world’s population at the time) – the number seems pretty unlikely. It’s the same as the number of civilians killed in World War II with a vastly higher world population and more destructive forms of weaponry. 11-15 million doesn’t seem outside the realms of possibility – a staggering total but still some way short of the inflated total given by Pinker [8]. If that figure is correct then the Mongol Conquests killed 2.5% of the world's population (450 million) in over a hundred years - from the 1230s to the late 14th century. By contrast World War II managed to wipe out between 1.5 and 2% of the World's population in only six years.

[1]One of the less well known aspects of the Mongol conquests was their capacity for propaganda. Regarding the above quote Jack Weathersford writes in ‘Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World that:

‘Rather than finding such apocalyptic descriptions derogatory, Genghis Khan seemed to have encouraged them. With his penchant for finding a use for everything he encountered, he devised a powerful way to exploit the high literacy rate of the Muslim people, and turned his unsuspecting enemies into a potent weapon for shaping public opinion. Terror, he realized, was best spread not by the acts of warriors, but by the pens of scribes and scholars. In an era before newspapers, the letters of the intelligentsia played a primary role in shaping public opinion, and in the conquest of central Asia, they played their role quite well on Genghis Khan’s behalf. The Mongols operated a virtual propaganda machine that consistently inflated the number of people killed in battle and spread fear wherever its words carried.’

Similarly George Lane remarks that the Mongols ’deliberately exaggerated and encouraged the horror stories that circulated around them and preceded their arrival in order to ensure an unhesitating surrender of the cowed population’.

[2] In David Morgan’s ‘The Mongols’ he states this figure as 200,000 however he was misled by an editor’s translation and has corrected it to 2 million in later editions. Clearly this figure is ludicrously high (see the estimates for Baghdad’s Medieval population in footnote 4).

[3] Even such a towering figure as Julius Caesar in his ‘Gallic Wars’ claimed that in a single battle against two tribes he had defeated an enemy 430,000 strong without losing a single soldier.

[4] Estimates of Baghdad’s population range from 96 million (!?!) by an 11th century source Hilal al-Sabi to perhaps 200,000 to 500,000 inhabitants (Jacob Lassner Massignon and Baghdad) The most plausible range for the time is probably between 200,000 and 600,000, a very large city by Medieval standards but not sufficiently large to meet Hulugu or Pinker’s total. Estimates of the killed range from 80,000 to 1 million. The lower end seems far more credible.

[5] John Fennell argues that although some Russian cities were captured and presumably damaged or destroyed, many others were probably bypassed and escaped sack.

[6] The 1290 census did not include Yunnan and other areas and also did not enumerate several categories of people, claiming that ‘migrants living in the wilderness are not included in the total’. According to Peter C. Perdue in ‘Exhausting the Earth’ it is generally accepted that the 1393 census did not count the entire population

[7] The Mongols don’t get off the hook completely here as it was the creation of their empire that cleared the way for the advance of plague from Central Asia into China.

[8] Any estimate has to be taken with a considerable pinch of salt. John Man estimates that the Khwarezmian massacres claimed 1.2 million lives – 25-30% of 5 million. Hulagu’s conquests may have claimed roughly the same number and a slightly lower total can be assumed for the incursions into Eastern Europe and Rus. Clearly the Chinese census cannot be taken at face value in estimating population lost & most of the total must be due to plague. Assuming the real decline was 30 million (allowing for a significant undercount in the censue) and Mongol actions accounted for 25% of deaths gives 7.5 million. This would give a grand total of 11.5 million over the course of around a century.

Discuss this post at the Quodlibeta Forum

Classical Global Skepticism and the EAAN

noreply@blogger.com (Jim S.) — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 21:20:00 +0000

Global skeptical claims are those that call virtually everything we think we know into question. Two of the most common are the evil genie and the brains-in-vats scenarios. The idea behind such claims is that they introduce situations where our experiences would be exactly the same as they are even though virtually everything we experience is a massive illusion. And if our experiences would be identical, then there's no way to test whether our experiences are veridical or whether the skeptical scenario is true.

Descartes, in establishing his philosophy, proposed a hyperbolic doubt for methodological purposes -- that is, he said, "Let's doubt everything we can and see if there's some level we can't doubt". So he doubted that his senses give him reliable information about the physical world, he doubted that he was awake since it was possible that he was dreaming, etc. When he got to a priori knowledge, such as mathematics, he argued that it's possible that there be an evil genie who manipulates his thought processes whenever he tries to add two numbers together so that he comes up with the wrong answer every time. Of course Descartes wasn't suggesting this as a real possibility, or even that we could doubt such things on a practical level, he was just saying that it's logically possible to doubt it. He ultimately got to the ground level with his cogito: I can't doubt that I'm doubting. Doubting is a form of thought and thought requires a subject who is doing the thinking. As such, I must exist. I think therefore I am (cogito ergo sum).

Now this fails for a very obvious reason. If we're willing to consider the possibility of the evil genie, why can't we just say the genie is also manipulating our thought processes when we try to derive the conclusion of the cogito? Yes it seems as if I can't doubt that I'm doubting, but maybe that's just the evil genie having his way with me. Once the genie is proposed, it applies to everything, including Descartes's argument.

The brains-in-vats scenario is sometimes used in science-fiction. The idea is that we are all disembodied brains being manipulated by scientists or aliens or something to think we are interacting with objects and other people in a physical world. This was used in the Matrix movies, although there they weren't disembodied brains. John Pollock begins his Contemporary Theories of Knowledge with a cute little short story illustrating the problem here. A man finds scientists taking people's brains out of their heads and hooking them up to electrodes. The man is discovered and is told that the people don't know the difference because they're programming them to think that their lives are continuing on without interruption as they had before; they can't tell the difference. The upshot is that, just as the man thinks they're going to do the same thing to him, the scientist laughs and says, "Oh no. We did it to you three months ago." Then they let him go.

Now global skeptical claims are fascinating and they play a huge role in the theory of knowledge. Michael Williams uses them as the main method in establishing his epistemology in his brilliant Problems of Knowledge. But no one takes them seriously as actual possibilities. For whatever reasons, we just don't feel threatened by them. Yes, it's possible that my experiences of the physical world and other people are all illusory, but why should I think so? Simply pointing to the possibility doesn't really make them realistic options. They're just bizarre stories that someone made up. We can certainly use them to further our concept of knowledge, but that's all.

The reason I'm bringing this up is that one of the criticisms given to Alvin Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism (EAAN) is that it is just one more form of global skepticism, and so should be treated the same way. Philosophers already have ways of dealing with such claims, and even if they didn't they wouldn't need them to reject the claim as nothing more than an interesting puzzle.

There's some truth to this: Plantinga's argument is that if naturalism is true, the likelihood that our beliefs would be mostly true is low or inscrutable. Therefore, for any particular belief, regardless of how reasonable it seems, the probability that it be true is low or inscrutable. And of course, naturalism is itself a belief. Therefore, if naturalism is true, belief in naturalism would be irrational. I'll go into more detail about that in future posts, but for now I'll just point out that the unreliability of our cognitive faculties would amount to a form of global skepticism.

There's more to the story though. The problem with traditional global skepticism is that it calls everything into question a priori. Before we have the right (deontologically) to accept any particular belief, we have to show that the belief in question is not subject to the skeptical claim. To do this, however, would require some form of argument -- and that argument would be under the same cloud as the belief it seeks to defend since the skeptical claim would equally apply to it. There's no way out.

However, everyone (except me) accepts that Plantinga is an externalist, and part of the strength of externalist epistemologies is their ability to avoid global skepticism. A belief constitutes knowledge if it is connected in the right way to its object. Thus, if you believe that there is a tree in front of you because there is a tree in front of you, you know it. The global skeptical questions only come into play when we ask second order questions (do you know that you know there is a tree in front of you?). But you do not have to solve that problem before you can know that there is a tree in front of you. Thus externalist epistemologies don't really solve global skepticism so much as they bypass it.

Moreover, Plantinga denies that all beliefs have to be believed for a reason before they constitute knowledge (he calls his epistemology Reidian foundationalism after Thomas Reid); rather, he maintains that some beliefs are properly basic, i.e. they are simply given and we are justified or warranted in accepting them (thus they constitute knowledge) until we have a reason to doubt them. As such, they are not beyond doubt, they can potentially be shown to be false, they are just innocent until proven guilty.

With these two points in mind, Plantinga's EAAN is significantly different from classical global skepticism. First, we do not have to have a reason for a belief if it is properly basic, and such a belief can constitute knowledge even if we don't know that we know it. We are justified, or our beliefs are warranted, up until the point where we have a reason for thinking them to be false. The EAAN provides just such a reason: if naturalism is true, then it is improbable or inscrutable that any given belief would be true. After this, the EAAN has the same effect as the more traditional global skeptical arguments: any reason you can give for a particular belief is itself subject to the EAAN and is therefore not trustworthy. There is no stopping the rot once it's started. Indeed, part of the genius of Plantinga's argument is that it amounts to a global skeptical argument that arises from within externalism. Not to mention the fact that by saying that belief in our cognitive faculties' reliability is warranted until we have some reason to deny it Plantinga is also able to ward off a tu quoque argument being constructed against theism.

Another significant difference is that the other global skeptical claims involve scenarios that are logically possible but that we don't take seriously. Plantinga's, however, involves a scenario that is actually believed by many people, namely naturalism, and even those of us who don't believe it tend to take it seriously (that is, we don't consider it as crazy as the evil genie or brains-in-vats scenarios). It's like if someone came up with an argument that if theism is true, it leads irrevocably to the evil genie scenario. If the argument were sound it would be much more than just an interesting puzzle.

A third difference cuts the other way: traditional global skepticisms posit situations where it is extremely probable, almost certain, that our cognitive faculties are unreliable. Plantinga's EAAN merely argues that it is either less than 50% probable that they are reliable, or if we feel we cannot ascribe any probability, inscrutable. We can certainly modify the traditional scenarios to make them more parallel, but the point is that in their traditional formulation they are stronger than Plantinga's argument.

A fourth difference is that the traditional global skepticisms do not allow for any way out. The brains-in-vats suggestion applies to everybody. But the EAAN allows for a way out, since it only holds if naturalism is true. We can avoid it by simply rejecting naturalism. Since naturalism entails the non-existence of God or any supernatural agency, it follows that in order for us to have knowledge of anything there must be a God or some sort of supernatural agency (although "supernatural" comes with a lot of baggage, so perhaps we could come up with another term that doesn't have as many connotations).

Two final points: first, Plantinga's argument only applies to those who have heard it; the naturalist who hasn't heard the EAAN or a similar one (such as J. R. Lucas's Gödelian Argument against physical determinism) does not have a reason to reject any particular belief. So it's not the case that one has to affirm the existence of God in order to have knowledge. The claim is that there must be some supernatural agency in order for us to have knowledge, not that we have to recognize that there is a supernatural agency. The problem here is very similar to axiological (moral) arguments for the existence of God. The point of these arguments is not that one has to consciously believe in God in order to be a moral person or believe in objective moral truths. Rather the claim is that one is being inconsistent in believing that there are objective moral truths without an objective anchor for them which transcends individual people and cultures. Of course atheists do not deny that murder is immoral, the argument just seeks to show that this is inconsistent with atheism.

Second, when we ask what the supernatural agency in question is, Plantinga immediately points to God. I think instead that the agency is the individual human being. We are supernatural agents, and rational thought is a supernatural process. I would argue further that this ultimately requires God's existence via a less direct route, but that's a post for another day.

(cross-posted at Agent Intellect)

Discuss this post at the Quodlibeta Forum

Steven Pinker's Medieval Murder Rates

noreply@blogger.com (Humphrey) — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 16:10:00 +0000

In a highly problematic passage from Steven Pinker’s ‘The Better Angels of our Nature’ the professor highlights the fact that homicide rates have plummeted across Europe since the 13th century. He does this with reference to the work of sociologists and historians such as Ted Robert Gurr and Carl I Hammer which show that murder rates dropped sharply across the centuries – 14th century England was about 95% more violent than the present era. What conclusions does Pinker draw from this? He seems to be pushing some theory by Norbert Elias which states that a civilizing process occurred. Medieval people were boorish, animalistic and lacking in habits of refinement. According to Pinker:

‘over a span of several centuries, beginning in the 11th or 12th and maturing in the 17th and 18th, Europeans increasingly inhibited their impulses, anticipated the long-term consequences of their actions, and took other people’s thoughts and feelings into consideration. A culture of honor—the readiness to take revenge—gave way to a culture of dignity—the readiness to control one’s emotions.’

By contrast according to Pinker

‘The people of the Middle Ages were, in a word, gross. A number of the advisories in the etiquette books deal with eliminating bodily effluvia: Don’t foul the staircases, corridors, closets, or wall hangings with urine or other filth. • Don’t relieve yourself in front of ladies, or before doors or windows of court chambers. • Don’t slide back and forth on your chair as if you’re trying to pass gas. • Don’t touch your private parts under your clothes with your bare hands. • Don’t greet someone while they are urinating or defecating. • Don’t make noise when you pass gas. • Don’t undo your clothes in front of other people in preparation for defecating, or do them up afterwards…..In the European Middle Ages, sexual activity too was less discreet. People were publicly naked more often, and couples took only perfunctory measures to keep their coitus private. Prostitutes offered their services openly; in many English towns, the red-light district was called Gropecunt Lane. Men would discuss their sexual exploits with their children, and a man’s illegitimate offspring would mix with his legitimate ones’

Now at this point once again I have to jump to the defence of the poor benighted medievals. Unlike Steven Pinker I am a regular watcher of the ‘Maury Povich’ show in the United States (for UK readers the immediate point of reference is the ‘Jeremy Kyle Show’) and I have been on numerous pub crawls in UK city centres. All of the gross practices highlighted by Pinker are in evidence – one might say omnipresent - in modern society so it makes little sense to rat on our ancestors for displaying them. Perhaps Pinker needs to spend less like in the urbane, sophisticated environment of Cambridge Massachusetts and more time somewhere like Calton Glasgow. Then he might not have as much confidence in the voodoo like properties of Peter Singer's ‘empathy circle’.

So what to make of Pinker’s historical data? Well, from the start I would expect to see a drop in homicide rates across the centuries for four reasons. Firstly societies have gradually increased centralised power in the state and established a monopoly on violence. Secondly courts of law have become more effective as venues for settling disputes, thereby making the use of violence unnecessary. Thirdly schooling and education have introduced a greater civility – perhaps this counts as a ‘civilising process’? Fourthly, it is now much harder to kill people due to modern medicine and the emergency services. Wounds which would previously have been fatal and resulted in homicide now result in grievous bodily harm*. A Saturday night in Newcastle which in previous centuries might have resulted in a bloodbath now simply results in the A&E being clogged with aggressive drunks. It would therefore not be surprising if homicide rates were higher before these variables developed – what would be surprising is if they were lower.

Before looking at Pinker’s figures I should point out how homicide rates are calculated, as n per 100,000 of population per annum. Basically you take the number of murders and divide it by the population size (of say Medieval Norwich). You then multiply this by 100,000 to give you the murder rate. Pinker has some figures from Gurr which show the murder rate in Medieval London as having homicide rates from of around 50 per 100,000 during the 14th and 15th centuries (the present figure is more like 1.8 per 100,000). He quotes a figure from Carl Hammer showing that the murder rate in 14th century Oxford was 110 per 100,000 which is astonishingly high given how sleepy and civilised the place is today (this murder rate - calculated based on 36 cases of homicide between 1342 and 1348 - is akin to that of cartel ridden Ciudad Juarez in Mexico).

Are the figures accurate? Here we run into a number of problems. You might have noticed that the homicide rates are highly dependent on the population statistics. Michael Prestwich discusses this in Plantagenet England 1225-1360 (p507-508). One estimate he quotes is that London in the first half of the fourteenth century had a homicide rate of between 5.2 and 3,6 cases per 10,000 (equivalent to 52 per 100,000 and 36 per 100,000 meaning London was as violent as present day New Orleans). However this estimate was based on the population of London being 35,000 to 50,000. It’s become increasingly clear that these estimates are wrong. For example it’s clear that building densities around Cheapside were extensive by the end of the 14th century – at levels not reached again until 1600 when the population was 100,000-200,000 including suburbs. According to Prestwich estimates of the city's population now reach as high as 107,900 to 176,000. At a population of 100,000 the murder rate would be 1.8 per 10,000 (18 per 100,000). This would make London’s murder rate equivalent to present day Atlanta or Pittsburgh. A slightly higher population estimate would make the murder rate equivalent to present day Boston across the Charles river from Stephen Pinker’s office – which seems unlikely. If that were correct then the question we would have to ask is why our present day cities are more dangerous than their equivalents in an age of comparative lawlessness** ?

What of the Mexican murder rate for Oxford? Prestwich says that the high figure may be explained by the fact Hammer used coroners records to come up with his statistics. Unlike the present day these report the circumstances of a mortality and do not distinguish between murder, manslaughter or accidental death – hence you end up with an extremely wide range of possible rates***. Given the paucity of data – Pinker seems to have gone for the highest one in order to massage his thesis. Furthermore such records only cover a period of a few years and might reflect a one off crime wave ****.

Any conclusions based on what little statistics we have must therefore be provisional and potentially unsafe. For example, according to Prestwich, the records show that there were ‘only three larcenies in Norwich in 1313, as against 703 in Bedford, Indiana (a town of similar size), in 1975’. It would be ill-advisable to read that statistic and go on to write a book called ‘The terrible daemons of our nature’ showing the slide into criminality of Western Culture – especially since 14th century crime reporting probably less quite a lot to be desired.

*This is perhaps the most important point. For example Randolph Roth author of American Homicide argues that given modern medicine—emergency response, trauma surgery, antibiotics, and wound care—three out of every four people murdered before 1850 would probably survive today.

**The issue of how violent Medieval society was is seriously hampered by lack of evidence. Alternative interpretations exist such as Phillipa Maddern’s ‘Violence and Social Order: East Anglia 1422-1442’ which argued that the allegedly violent landscape of East Anglia (then the most urbanised area of England) was in fact, remarkably free of criminal violence and that this model could be applied to the rest of the country.

***As an example of the difficulties with this approach the only surviving run of coroners’ records for England’s 2nd largest city Norwich are from 1263 to 1268. These document 36 cases, 14 seem to be accidental death or theft. In 5 the conclusion is more ambiguous – either the jury swore the death was accidental or the suspect was cleared by compurgation. That leaves 17 possible instances of murder over 5 years – a proportion of which could classed as manslaughter. If these were all murders the average rate per year given a population of 17,000 would have been 20 per 100,000 – a rate akin to Philadelphia in 2010. If half were murders the rate would be 10 which is slightly less than Boston.

****Oxford was undoubtedly a violent place in the Middle Ages. Of 29 coroners’ reports that have been preserved for the period 1297-1322, 13 are murders committed by scholars. Attacks on townspeople were sometimes countenanced and even led by officials of the university. For example in 1526 a Procter organised a riot in which many citizens were attacked and their houses looted. In 1355 in what became known as the ‘St Scholastic’s Day riot’ an argument in a tavern became a pub brawl which went on for the next 3 days. It began when a group of students at an inn near Carfax disapproved of the wine they were served. The inn-keeper having given them ‘stubborn and saucy language’ the clerks ‘threw the wine and vessel at his head’. The townspeople then seized the opportunity to arm themselves with bows and arrows and attack scholars. Gangs of academics and citizens clashed in the streets and academic halls were burned. Six students and scholars were killed.

Discuss this post at the Quodlibeta Forum

Pinker tackles the Albigensian Crusade

noreply@blogger.com (Humphrey) — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 20:06:00 +0000

In ‘The Better Angels of our Nature’ Steven Pinker reels off example after example of ancient, medieval and early modern brutality in order to justify his thesis that the world is getting less violent. Pinker writes:

In the 13th century the Cathars of southern France embraced the Albigensian heresy, according to which there are two gods, one of good and one of evil. An infuriated papacy, in collusion with the king of France, sent waves of armies to the region, which killed around 200,000 of them. To give you a sense of the armies’ tactics, after capturing the city of Bram in 1210 they took a hundred of the defeated soldiers, cut off their noses and upper lips, gouged out the eyes of all but one, and had him lead the others to the city of Cabaret to terrorize its citizens into surrendering. The reason you have never met a Cathar is that the Albigensian Crusade exterminated them. Historians classify this episode as a clear instance of genocide*, **.

In this passage Pinker claims that the infamous Albigensian Crusade (1209–1229) took the lives of 200,000 people, though in a footnote he approvingly cites White’s figure for the suppression of the Cathars – one million deaths.

The first step in determining whether these are credible estimates should be to estimate the population of the region and the scale of the conflict which erupted for 20 years. Estimates of the Langudoc’s population in the 13th century are few and far between. According to ‘Heresy Proceedings in Languedoc 1500-1560’, the population in the fourteenth century was about 1.5 million. So I think we can make an educated guess that the population at the time of the crusades (13th century) was a bit lower at 1 million (see also). This means in order for White’s figure of 1 million deaths to be credible, the Crusade needed to have been sufficiently large to slaughter pretty much every single person in the Languedoc (unless of course they bussed in a load of heretics from somewhere else).

In terms of the major cities in the region according to Costen, ‘The Cathars and the Albig ensian Crusade’. The city of Beziers possibly had a population no higher than 10,000. Toulouse had a population of 20,000, Montsegur at the time it was besieged had a population of 361, Carcassonne had a population of 6,000.

During the fighting itself, almost the entire population of Beziers was slaughtered on the 22nd of July 1209 according to the chroniclers. The legates recorded that ‘our men spared no-one, irrespective of rank, sex or age’ and put the toll for the massacre down as 20,000. In God’s War Christopher Tyerman states that ‘the true figure was almost certainly far less’ (p591). Costen points out that the cities population probably only numbered 10,000 (Tyerman thinks 8-9 thousand) so ‘this claim can be seen as in line with the normal inability of commentators at this period to deal with large numbers’ (p123). When Caracassonne fell, all the citizens were allowed to leave freely (though naked according to some accounts). When a new crusade was launched in 1211, Lavaur was attacked and 400 Cathar perfecti were burnt (New Cambridge Medieval History vol5 p167).

Following Beziers the social order of the region – always a ‘a patchwork of petty lords and nobles who spent most of their time and energy fighting each other’ - collapsed and it became a perpetual war zone. Massacres became a regular event – ‘from the inhabitants of the modest Castrum of Les Touelles to the 5,000 citizens dispatched at Marmande***’ (Tyerman 592). However as the war dragged on these horrors decreased, perhaps reflecting a lack of persecuting zeal or the chroniclers indifference.

Following the death of Simon De Montfort his son Amaury lost ground and retired to Paris. Another crusade led by Louis VIII was sent to the Langudoc upon which many southern cities voluntarily submitted to the king. Upon arrival the crusade was very small due to the departure of many of its original participants and the fact that many had die in an epidemic. In the event it was not attacked and the king died unexpectedly. When war next erupted in 1228 the count of Toulouse sued for peace due to financial considerations and agreed to enforce the heresy laws.

The inquisition’s activities were more restrained than their reputation suggests though they conducted an unprecedented level of investigation and interrogation. Bernard of Caux, inquisitor of Toulouse appears to have sentenced 207 offenders between 12th of May and 22nd of July 1246 (the height of the inquisition’s activity)– burning none, sentencing 23 to imprisonment and ordering the rest to wear crosses. Later in the century some 8 to 9 percent of those sentenced were burned to death.

The Albigensian Crusade must rank as one of the nastiest of medieval wars, resulting in massacres, atrocities, guerrilla warfare and the breakdown of social order. As Malcolm Barbour argues:

‘the Albigensian crusades went far beyond the normal conventions of early thirteenth-century warfare, in the scale of the slaughter, in the execution of high-status opponents, male and female, in the mutilation of prisoners, in the humiliation and shaming of the defeated, and in the quite overt use of terror as a method of achieving one's goals'.

Nethertheless, as Tyerman points out ‘the crusades did not destroy a region’ (p604), once the fighting ended, ‘prosperity returned’. With the exception of the massacre at Beziers the destruction waged in the region was comparatively modest in scale. Aside from de Montfort’s victory at Saint-Martin-Lalande and the Battle of Muret the Langudociens appear to have avoided field engagements and the massacres appear to number in the hundreds rather than thousands.

Coming up with any sort of figure for death tolls appear futile. 1,000,000 deaths is clearly ridiculous, 200,000 – a 20% death rate for the region seems too high. 100,000 might be closer to the truth but given the paucity of evidence any estimate is going to be pure speculative ‘finger waving’.

*Actually the Albigensian crusade hardly touched the Cathars. As Languedoc was restored to southern French rule after 1218 the Cathars resumed the public practice of their faith and were as strong as before. The crusade – always something of a cynical land grab - was a failure that petered out after its leader Simon De Montfort was killed at Toulouse in 1218. The reason the Cathars got their come-uppence was because the French monarchy acquired the Langedoc region of southern France through an advantageous marriage and the inquisitors were allowed to operate there.

**In his account of the capture of Bram Pierre Des Vaux claims that the mutilations were performed as a reaction to atrocities perpetrated by the defenders, reflecting tit for tat violence rather than tactical necessity. Hideous atrocities were perpetrated on both sides, including the reign of terror conducted in the Dordogne valley by Bernard of Cazenac and his wife Elise (the second jezebel) in which 150 men and women had their hands or feet amputated or their eyes put out in the Benedictine Abbey of Sarlat. Elise’s modus oper

andi was allegedly removing women’s thumbs and ordering the removal of the nipples of a poor peasant woman (Tyerman p592).

During the siege of Toulouse in 1217-18, captured crusaders could expect to have their eyes put out, their tongues removed, to be dragged behind horses, stoned, dropped from the ramparts, or drowned with mill-stones around their necks. According to Malcolm Barbour ‘In 1212, Roger Bernard, the count's son, captured some crusaders near Narbonne, took them back to Foix, where he and his men spent their time devising "new and original tortures" for them including suspension by their genitals’.

*Again the numbers seem high here given that the population in later centuries is estimated at numbering around 1,000 but there is little doubt a major massacre took place – the anonymous pro northern chronicler describes numerous assorted organs ‘torn out and tossed aside on the open ground as if they had rained down from the sky’.

Discuss this post at the Quodlibeta Forum

Steven Pinker and the An Lushan Revolt

noreply@blogger.com (Humphrey) — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 17:09:00 +0000

Most people – I think – if asked to name the bloodiest century in human history would probably say the 20th. I hasten to add this isn't the kind of question you get on history exam papers nowadays – you are more likely to get quizzed on ‘Household Formation, Lineage and gender relations in the early modern Atlantic world’ or something less bloodthirsty.

In Steven Pinker’s new book, ‘The better angels of our nature’ the wild haired Harvard professor is having none of this. The preference for the 20th century is mere ‘historical myopia’. Instead when one roots around through the

history books for forgotten wars and scales for the world’s population at the time – you find a whole set of lesser known conflicts that dwarf the toll for the first and second world wars. Pinker then presents a table showing the Second World War as merely the 9th most destructive atrocity of all time – lagging behind the Atlantic Slave Trade, the annihilation of the American Indians, Tamerlane’s conquests, the fall of Rome, the fall of the Ming dynasty, the Mid-east slave trade, the Mongol conquests and – most terrible of all – the An Lushan Revolt (something the majority of westerners have never even heard of).

Now at this point one’s proverbial ‘Bullshit-o-meter’ should be sounding – anyone who claims that they have a reasonably accurate ‘death toll estimate’ for something like the Mongol Conquests is being ludicrously over-confident. Pinker’s table looks suspiciously like something that has been cut and pasted from Wikipedia. In fact the figures appear to have been lifted from a site called ‘Necromterics’ authored by Matthew White – a librarian and author whose somewhat macabre hobby appears to be calculating historic death tolls. His scholarly works include such essays as 'Which Has Killed More People? Christianity? or Gun Control' so it's a bit strange that Pinker would consider him the go-to man on the demography of Medieval China.

The An Lushan Revolt, according to Pinker and White, wiped out something like 36,000,000 Chinese over the course of 8 years – a toll equivalent to two thirds (66%) of the Tang Empire’s population. If you scale for the mid 20th century’s population you would end up with an equivalent toll of 429,000,000 people. That would indeed be an astonishing high death rate – by comparison the Nazi invasion of Soviet Russia killed around 13% of Russia’s population - over half the population in the regions and countries of Europe where there is data of useful quality died in the Black Death (perhaps the worst demographic disaster in the history of the world). To justify this Pinker and White refer to the fact that at the peak of the medieval Tang dynasty, the census taken in the year 753 recorded a population of 52,880,488. After eleven years of civil war, the census of 764 gave a figure of 16,900,000. None of the figures cited on White’s site appear to come from Sinologists as far as I can see and no context is given for the low census figures*.

Accordingly I have worked through a number of works such as the ‘Cambridge History of China Vol 3’, Mark Edward Lewis’s ‘The Chinese Cosmopolitan Empire – the Tang Dynasty’ and David Andrew Graff’s ‘Medieval Chinese Warfare’ to see if they can shed greater light on what is now claimed to be the greatest holocaust in human history.

An Lushan was a garrison commanding general of mixed Sogdian and Turkish descent who rebelled against the Tang Dynasty in 755. This sparked a civil war across northern China for a period of eight years before the rebels were finally destroyed in 763. During this period of the two capitals of the Tang dynasty, the city of Chang’an was damaged and the city of Luoyang was burned. This suggests that the conflict was highly destructive but when assessing the impact there are a number of difficulties.

Firstly, up until the modern age, population counts were sporadic and incomplete. The first full censuses were not made until 1790 in the United States and 1801 in Britain. In the medieval Chinese era, the government counted households and some or all of the people constituting them, but did not attempt a complete registration until 1953. This was for the purpose of levying troops or more commonly allocating tax burdens. Only a few landmark censuses from the pre-Song era are taken to be reasonably reliable and the taxation records are frequently disrupted by war and administrative chaos. The figures for number of households are held to be far more reliable than those for actual head count

Secondly the census figures vary wildly depending on the contemporary level of government control. For example, in the reign of Taizong from 626 to 649, only 3,000,000 household were registered. Under the previous Sui dynasty (581-618) the figure had been 9,000,000 households. According to Richard Guisso in the Cambridge History of China this ‘sensational decline was not the result of catastrophic loss of life during the civil warfare of late Sui and early T'ang, but of simple failure by the local authorities to register the population in full. Even in the first years of Kao-tsung's reign only 3,800,000 households - certainly far less than half of the actual population – were registered. Considerably more than half of the population was thus unregistered and paying no taxes (p297 Cambridge History of China). This shows that in times of difficulty the highly centralised taxation system could break down – resulting in half the population or more being omitted from the census.

After the An Lushan revolt the situation reached crisis proportions and a new period of warlordism and regional autonomy emerged. The Tang had survived only by carrying out a general decentralisation of administrative power and dispersing power through a new tier of provincial governments. Despite the restoration of peace the empire remained in a state of chaos. China broke into many regions who collected their own taxes and remitted only a small portion to the central government. The Tang could no longer update it’s registers and chart landowning; local tax records were destroyed, scattered and rendered obselete. As Graff writes:

After the An Lushan rebellion, the Tang court lost the ability to enroll, enumerate, and impose taxes directly upon the majority of China’s peasant households. This development is dramatically illustrated by the decline of the registered population from approximately nine million households in 755 to less than two million in 760. (P240 – Medieval Chinese Warfare)

The post rebellion census figures cannot then be relied upon when estimating the impact on the empires population in the 8th century and there are no signs of a catastrophic two thirds population loss. Instead the indications are that China continued to have a large population base into the 9th century with which the dynasty was able to raise professional and conscripted armies to compete with the nomadic powers in dominating inner Asia.

The estimates given by the great Harvard sinologist John King Fairbank in 'the New History of China' (2006) are that ‘the empire’s population may have totalled 60 million in AD 80, 80 million in 875, 110 million in 1190’ (p106). These are of course estimates but they show that the general impression from historians of the period is not one of catastrophic population decline followed by recovery – but of a slow and steady late medieval population boom coupled with a shift in population from north to south. Mark Edward Lewis remarks that that:

‘Between 742 and 1080 (two years for which comprehensive census records have survived), the population in the north increased by only 26 percent, while that in the south increased by 328 percent’

C A Peterson in the Cambridge history of China notes that in the wake of the rebellion:

Large scale shifts of population took place. Many of the war affected areas in Ho-pei and Ho-nan were partially depopulated, and many people migrated to the Huai and Yangtze valleys and to the south (P496)

There are therefore plenty of reasons to be sceptical of Pinker’s claim that An Lushan’s revolt ranks as the most destructive war of all time. In fact he doesn’t appear to have done even the most basic research of research into the credibility of his figures; which is a shame because ‘The Better Angels of our Natures’ is a very good read and presents some interesting questions.

*In his recent book 'The great big book of horrible things' Matthew White goes with a 'more conservative' figure for the An Lushan revolt of 13 million dead - though he obviously didn't tell Pinker.

Discuss this post at the Quodlibeta Forum

Debate on Science and Religion

noreply@blogger.com (Jim S.) — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 13:12:00 +0000

Hey folks, sorry for the lack of posting lately. To make up for it I'm copying a debate I had on an old blog I used to write with a couple of people of the young-earth inclination. I've changed the names (although they were just screen names). [Update: I've corrected some formatting issues.]

B: Science is knowledge..but it is not wisdom. Wisdom only comes from studying the Bible. Evolution is a theory...not a fact. I don't care how many times they say its fact..it is not. They can't prove anything. True science is being able to prove a theory.

The main reason people want to believe this lie...is they want to deny God. If you believe a wonderful creator God made us...then you have to believe in the rest of the Bible. This includes living a life that is Christ-like in character. You must deny yourself and lift up the cross. But people don't want to deny themselves.

Too many Americans have too many idols. Such as food, tv, sports, material things, etc. Believing in science allows people to live a hedonistic lifestyle...if it feels good...do it. This is fine..but as Solomon says in Proverbs....only for a season.

Jim S.: I have to disagree. Science is the systematic observation of God's creation. The Bible tells us that God's creation is a reliable witness (see Psalm 19:1-4, for example). So I don't see how we can believe the Bible and not believe science. Science is one of the things that led me to belief in God.

I also have to contest the claim that people believe in evolution in order to deny the existence of God. There are plenty of people who believe in God and evolution. I suggest you read Life's Solution by Simon Conway Morris and Rebuilding the Matrix by Denis Alexander. Both authors are devout Christians, scientists, and Darwinists. So it seems to me that evolution is completely consistent with belief in God and Christianity.

B: "devout Christians, scientists, and Darwinists".....what?

You cannot believe in God and evolution....they contradict themselves. You either believe the Bible and a literal 6 creation days...or you believe in millions and millions of years....not both.

Just look at the 2nd commandment...."for I the Lord thy God am a jelous God", He wants your total obediance to His word. You can't believe God and what some lowly, sinful men have invented in their minds. Which is what evolution is....a nice guess to how the world was created.

I've heard some Christians say that the days were actually thousands of years in between....what? God created the flowers and the grass and the trees on the 3rd day....He created the sun and moon and stars on the 4th day....so flowers and trees went 1,000 years without sunlight? I don't think so.

So it seems to me that evolution is completely in-consistent with belief in God and Christianity...because remember...being a Christian meens being a follower of Christ...the same Christ who created the world in Genesis

Jim S.: Well, I have to disagree again. There are plenty of devout Christians who believe in evolution. C. S. Lewis, for example, accepted it, and he was a great champion for Christianity. B. B. Warfield, the theologian most responsible for our concept of the inerrancy of the Bible, believed in evolution. Moreover, evolution seems very similar to the Christian doctrine of rationes seminales, or seminal principles. This was the view that God created everything in seed form, and it then developed accordingly. It was held by many early Christians, such as Athenagoras, Tertullian, Gregory of Nyssa, and Augustine, as well as many theologians of the Middle Ages, such as Bonaventure, Albert the Great, and Roger Bacon.

The Bible tells us the who and the what of creation, but focuses less on the when and the how. God frequently uses natural processes to accomplish his purposes (see, for example, Exodus 14:21), so I don't see anything inconsistent with believing that God used the natural processes that he set up to create the world.

I'm convinced that the whole "evolution vs. creation" meme is something invented in the 19th century by non-Christians who wanted to drive a wedge between Christianity and science. I don't think it's wise to let such people define the content of our faith for us.

As for the age of the universe, that strikes me as a completely different issue. You write that the plants couldn't have survived 1,000 years without sunlight, but they couldn't have survived a single day without it either, or even a minute. The resolution to this is in Genesis 1:3 which states that there was light on the surface of the earth on day one. As long as there was light, the plants could photosynthesize for as long as they needed.

I would argue that Genesis 1 clearly represents the days of creation as being God's days (they make up his workweek, the seventh day is his day of rest), and that we have no reason to think that God's days are the same as humankind's days. Indeed, the Bible states pretty clearly that God's experience of time is radically different from ours (Psalm 90:4; 2 Peter 3:8-9).

I'll close by reiterating the fact that the Bible itself tells us that his creation is a reliable and trustworthy witness (Job 12:7-10; Psalm 19:1-4; Rom 1:18-20). Science is the systematic observation of God's creation. Therefore, I think that we Christians are obliged, by the words of the Bible, to accept the findings of science. This doesn't mean that we have to accept everything every scientist says, because some scientists have an axe to grind against religion. But God's creation can be trusted to reveal the truth about itself. If it reveals that the universe is billions of years old, then I have no objection.

B: I don't know how to respond to some of your statements. To the men you stated who believe in evolution and claim to be Christians. It says in Isaiah 8:20, "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."

I've never heard about the creation week not being the same week we keep today. I mean...does God really need a week to do anything...after all...he just spoke and things happened. Also, the 7th day wasn't for God to rest...because really...does God need rest? Of course not. The 7th day is for us to rest. Our society works and works and works...God knew this...He gave us a day to not think about the world but think about our Lord and Saviour.

True science is something that can be proved. Of course evolution can not be proved. Its a theory. Nobody was there. Same with creation. We only have our faith to go on. But do you want to put your faith in men or God?

1 Corinthians 2:5 says, "That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God."

There is power in the words of God. He spoke and the world was created. Look at the word universe. Uni being one...and verse being the spoken word....ONE WORD....God spoke and all was created. I believe that it was 7 days...the same 7 days we keep today. Everything works in cycles...a 24 hour cycle...a weekly cycle...a monthly cycle..etc. Why would God be using some other time frame that we don't understand?

For the most part I believe evolutionists fall under Romans 10:3, " For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God."

Let me state this one more time. A Christian is a follower of Christ. You either believe everything the Bibe claims...or you don't. You cannot cherry pick what you want to believe out of the Bible. In Ephesians 3:9 it says, " And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ".

I think alot of people feel ashamed to to say they believe in Creation. Because its the scientists and perceived intellectual types that believe in evolution. So if you want to be cosidered "smart" you will believe like they do. But I am not ashamed to believe in creation. The Bible says in Romans 10:11, "For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on Him shall not be ashamed."

There is a day coming where Christ will show himself to us and He will be justified before men. The Bible is the truth...not a half truth..not partially true...totally true. In John 17:17 it says, "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."

Scientists cannot get you to heaven. If they can...then by all means...believe what they say. Evolution somehow says God needed help or time to do what He wanted....thats rubbish. God could have created the whole world in a second if He wanted to. The creation story is for us...today...a testimony to the love of God.

My major problem with evolution is that it puts doubt into peoples minds. It doubts Gods power. Evolution is a stumbling block to young Christians. What does Jesus warn us about in Matthew 24:4..."And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you."

Deception is the major problem for Christians in the endtime. I believe that evolution is just another one of Satans deceptions. If Satan can get people to believe that they can be good Christians and believe in evolution....who wins?

Jim S.: Thanks for your thoughtful comments. If I may, let me reproduce what you wrote, with my comments interspersed.

I don't know how to respond to some of your statements. To the men you stated who believe in evolution and claim to be Christians. It says in Isaiah 8:20, "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."

These men don't merely claim to be Christians, they are Christians. For example, part of the reason that you believe that the Bible is true in everything it asserts is because of B. B. Warfield's defining of the concept of inerrancy. He believed the Bible was the holy word of God, and believed it contained no errors. He also believed in evolution.

I've never heard about the creation week not being the same week we keep today. I mean...does God really need a week to do anything...after all...he just spoke and things happened.

Agreed. He didn't need to take seven calendar days or billions of years. But the question isn't what God can do, but what God has done.

Also, the 7th day wasn't for God to rest...because really...does God need rest? Of course not. The 7th day is for us to rest.

Well, according to the Bible God rested on the seventh day of creation (Genesis 2:1-3). Of course God didn't need to rest. He was creating an archetype: just as God rested on God's Sabbath day, so humanity should rest on humanity's Sabbath day. This same pattern is extended to nature: the Hebrews were commanded to give the land a Sabbath rest, one year out of every seven (Exodus 23:10-12; Leviticus 25:1-7). The parallel is the six-plus-one pattern, not how long the Sabbaths are.

Our society works and works and works...God knew this...He gave us a day to not think about the world but think about our Lord and Saviour.

Agreed, although I don't think there's anything preventing us from thinking about him during the week.

True science is something that can be proved. Of course evolution can not be proved. Its a theory. Nobody was there.

Well, according to the Bible, creation was there, and it testifies as to what happened. Contrast the Bible's view of the reliability of creation's witness with the reliability of humanity's witness. The testimony of creation is much more trustworthy.

Same with creation. We only have our faith to go on.

I came to believe in God and creation partially because of the discoveries of modern science.

But do you want to put your faith in men or God?

In God. That's why I trust what he has revealed through his creation, as well as what he has revealed in the Bible.

1 Corinthians 2:5 says, "That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God."

There is power in the words of God. He spoke and the world was created. Look at the word universe. Uni being one...and verse being the spoken word....ONE WORD....God spoke and all was created.

I agree.

I believe that it was 7 days...the same 7 days we keep today. Everything works in cycles...a 24 hour cycle...a weekly cycle...a monthly cycle..etc. Why would God be using some other time frame that we don't understand?

There's nothing incomprehensible in the idea that God's days are different from ours. Again, the point in the days of creation is to set up the six-plus-one pattern that we are to follow in our days. How could the first three days be the same kind of days we have today if the sun, moon, and stars didn't even appear in the sky until the fourth day?

For the most part I believe evolutionists fall under Romans 10:3, " For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God."

I think our society uses evolution as an excuse to avoid God. That says a lot about our society and nothing about evolution. Again, there are plenty of devout Christians who have submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God who believe in evolution. I've given several examples of such people in my earlier comments.

Let me state this one more time. A Christian is a follower of Christ.

Of course.

You either believe everything the Bibe claims...or you don't.

I believe everything the Bible claims, although I wouldn't make this a test for being a sincere Christian. C. S. Lewis thought the Bible had errors in it, and as I wrote above, he was a great champion for the cause of Christ. But this is a side issue, since you and I are in agreement on this.

You cannot cherry pick what you want to believe out of the Bible.

Right. But that means you can't choose to ignore the Bible passages that say that God's creation is a trustworthy revelation, and that we are therefore obliged to accept its testimony. With regards to the age of the universe, I'm not challenging the words of the Bible, I'm simply challenging your interpretation.

In Ephesians 3:9 it says, " And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ".

Amen.

I think alot of people feel ashamed to to say they believe in Creation. Because its the scientists and perceived intellectual types that believe in evolution. So if you want to be cosidered "smart" you will believe like they do.

I agree. However, I don't think the response to this is to close our eyes to evidence that might challenge us to think about things.

But I am not ashamed to believe in creation. The Bible says in Romans 10:11, "For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on Him shall not be ashamed."

There is a day coming where Christ will show himself to us and He will be justified before men. The Bible is the truth...not a half truth..not partially true...totally true. In John 17:17 it says, "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."

I agree with all of this. I would just point out that the Bible itself says that the truth isn't limited to what the Bible says.

Scientists cannot get you to heaven. If they can...then by all means...believe what they say.

Well, of course not.

Evolution somehow says God needed help or time to do what He wanted....thats rubbish.

That's not what evolution says. Evolution at most would explain how God used the natural laws that he created to create the various plants and animals. Nobody is claiming that God needed help. Remember, God used a strong wind to part the Red Sea (Exodus 14:21). Does this mean he needed "help"?

God could have created the whole world in a second if He wanted to. The creation story is for us...today...a testimony to the love of God.

Agreed.

My major problem with evolution is that it puts doubt into peoples minds.

There are two ways to respond to this situation: deny evolution, or deny that it conflicts with our faith. You've chosen the first option, I've chosen the second.

It doubts Gods power.

No it doesn't. It simply tells us how he used it. The existence of a strong wind that blew back the waters of the Red Sea did not challenge God's power, it demonstrated his power.

Evolution is a stumbling block to young Christians.

That's because fallen human beings have claimed that evolution and Christianity are inconsistent. Why do you accept this testimony of human beings, when the testimony of the Bible clearly says that we can trust what nature tells us?

What does Jesus warn us about in Matthew 24:4..."And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you."

Deception is the major problem for Christians in the endtime. I believe that evolution is just another one of Satans deceptions. If Satan can get people to believe that they can be good Christians and believe in evolution....who wins?

Well, if evolution is no longer a stumbling block to accepting Christ, then it seems to me that nearly everyone wins. The only people who don't win would be those who were using evolution as an excuse to avoid God. They would then have to find another excuse.

B: I will give you the last word. You make a compelling arguement. Let's agree to disagree on this topic. Take care and God bless.

Jim S.: Fair enough. Thanks for the debate! I hope you keep reading and commenting.

L: To Jim S.;

I enjoyed your debate with B; I thought you both handled your arguments with elegance and christ-likeness in your restraint and attitudes.

I wanted to make a comment regarding that topic. I also have given much study, research and thought, as well as prayer in filtering viewpoints and evidence on both sides of the issue of creation and evolution, and in this case specifically the age of the universe.

One major obstacle I always come to when encountering the idea that perhaps the earth (and beyond) was created over a long period of time as opposed to literal 6 days which the Bible would seem to indicate in a straight-forward reading, is this:

I think that in all fairness and honesty, to ALL viewpoints on this subject, first of all, no one would ever get any direct indication that there was a long period of time involved STRICTLY from the Bible itself. There is nothing to indicate. One might make an argument that it could "support" such an idea, but there is nothing there to directly INDICATE it. Would you agree with this? If you have some examples to the contrary, I would sincerely be interested in considering them.

Secondly, assuming that is the case, it is logical to conclude then, that the actual IDEA of millions and billions of years, comes from what science tells us is revealed or observed in nature, or as I would refer to it, God's creation. Yes?

If so, one thing we have to realize is that while science is certainly a good thing and can be very helpful, it is subject to FINITE MAN'S INTERPRETATION - ALWAYS. It should NEVER be taken as authority OVER GOD'S WRITTEN WORD. It must ALWAYS be interpreted in light of the Bible, and NOT the other way around.

There are almost always at least 2 ways to look at almost any piece of evidence. Contrary to what modern science theology likes to try to convince us, evidence NEVER is a simple cut and dried fact, and never simply interprets itself. ANY and ALL evidence is ALWAYS interpreted based on pre-suppositations, and biases. Essentially, our world-view is the context within which everything that we see, hear, feel, etc, is viewed, perceived, and interpreted. We MUST keep this in mind.

Therefore, with that in mind, almost ALL evidence that COULD be interepreted as indicating the earth is millions of years old, can ALSO be interpreted differently, based on one's presuppositions, assumption, and world-view. If it makes it easier, go ahead and give me an example of "evidence" which indicates the earth is millions of years old, and I will show you how there can be another, equally valid, equally logical, interpretation for that "evidence". Almost ALL the scientists and others that you cited as examples of christians that believed in evolution, did so, NOT because the Bible gave that indication, but because of scientific observation etc., and usually because they were led to believe by scientists in those days, that such ideas were more or less FACT, and that there was no other way to view them. Therefore, they had to FIND a way to make science (or more accurately MAN"S INTERPRETATION of science", FIT the Bible so that they could justify holding to the truth of God's word without looking like an idiot. One might say they "compromised" because they did not have the faith to simply believe exactly what God said in His word, but rather trusted in what MAN'S INTERPRETATION of nature told him, rather than realizing that scientific theory is ALWAYS changing, and always susceptible to error and misinterpretation, and of simply not having ALL the facts available yet.

With that in mind, here is the main issue I have had to come to terms with, the main obstacle to being able to accept man's interpretation of millions of years.

IF one accepts man's interpretation of the "evidence" as indicating that the world is millions of years, one of the main pieces of evidence that would HAVE to be included in that, if not the very foundation of it, is the fossil record. IF the earth IS millions/billions of years old, then the fossils we find in the deepest layers would HAVE to have been deposited there at that time. The problem with this, is this:

IF this is true, then it would absolutely mean, that there was DEATH, DISEASE, SUFFERING, etc., for millions of years BEFORE MAN SINNED. The Bible tells us, that death was a RESULT of SIN, and that before sin all was perfect. There was no death, no disease, no suffering, etc. BECAUSE of SIN, the entire earth and indeed ALL OF CREATION (groaneth) suffers as a result of the sin curse. To believe that death and suffering existed before man sinned, essentially discounts the entire premise behind why Christ ever had to come to earth and die for us in the first place. It would also be CONTRARY to the very NATURE OF GOD, to allow death, suffering, etc., and call it "GOOD". I do not believe that God would "use" death and suffering as his method to bring about his perfect creation. Common sense and logic tells you, that ALL the bad, evil, suffering etc., that exists today, is a result of the curse of sin. If you think through this whole concept thoroughly, I think you would have to agree that accepting billions of years also has to accept death and suffering before sin, and that accepting death and suffering before sin, is absolutely contrary to the clear teaching of God's word.

IF this is true, then would you not agree that it then behooves man, to go back and START FROM THE BIBLE, and RE-INTERPRET the "evidence" from the perspective that the BIBLE is THE final authority on the subject, and must be the starting point in all scientific interpretations. REMEMBER, all the evidence is ALREADY interpreted based on assumptions and presuppositions to begin with. There is already a different way to view ALL that evidence which evolutionists CHOOSE to interpret as indicating an old earth. More and more good research and findings are emerging all the time with the recent availability of modern technology to creation scientists. Mainstream evolutionists try with all their might to block, thwart, and discount any ideas, evidence, or theories which oppose their ever changing theories, but little by little more and more things come out that are becoming increasingly difficult for evolutionists to explain or argue away, so they work with all their might to BLOCK these things from ever gaining public access, they try with all their might to keep ALL arguments one-sided, because they know that when people are actually exposed to the PROBLEMS associated with belief in evolution, and all the flaws in logic and LACK of evidence, and circular reasoning involved with what little evidence they have that can support their arguments, people quickly right through the facade, so they have to play the shell game with their evidence and arguments, and block all opposing veiwpoints from the young minds that they are so desperately trying to brainwash while they can.

I hope you will consider these comments prayerfully and deeply, as I have for many years now, and I look forward to your feedback and comments.

Jim S.: Hi L, thanks for joining the debate. I apologize for taking a few days to respond, I have a lot of things on my plate right now. You might want to check out this post which has links to several other posts I've written on science and religion, including this particular issue.

Your first objection is that no one would come to view the days of creation as long periods of time solely through the study of the Bible. I disagree, and gave a couple of biblical arguments in my comments above. First, the days of creation are clearly presented as God's days (the first six days are his workweek, the seventh day is his day of rest), and the Bible unequivocally states that God's days are very different from humanity's days (Psalm 90:4; 2 Peter 3:8-9). Second, the first three days occurred sans sun, moon, and stars, and so it would be difficult to equate them with the same days we experience now.

There are many other biblical arguments along these lines. One of the more popular ones is that the creation of both man and woman took place on day six (Genesis 1: 27), but the description of events between the creation of man and woman in Genesis 2 cannot be reasonably squeezed into a single day. Another is that the Bible suggests that God's rest is ongoing; and since God's rest is identical to the seventh day of creation, the seventh day is a long period of time continuing up to the present (Psalm 95:7-11; Hebrews 3:12-4:11). Therefore, the other six days, being of the same type, are also long periods.

Another point to make here is that many of the early Church fathers, such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Origen, thought the days of creation were long periods of time. Of course, they thought that each Bible passage had several distinct interpretations, but one of the interpretations they gave was that each creation day was a long period. They gave biblical arguments for it. The point being that they were obviously not trying to reconcile the Bible with science, since at that time there was no scientific evidence for the antiquity of the earth and universe.

Your second objection is that science is finite man's interpretation of God's creation, and should therefore be understood in light of the Bible. I would point out, first, that theology is finite man's interpretation of the words of the Bible. Our understanding of the Bible is just as fallible as our understanding of God's creation. If science is merely an interpretation, so is your understanding of the Bible.

Second, I would point out that the Bible itself states that God's creation is a reliable witness independent of the Bible. Psalm 19:1-4 and Romans 1:18-20 both claim that those who do not have any special revelation (roughly the Bible) to go on, still have the revelation of God's creation. They will thus have "no excuse" according to the apostle Paul. But if creation has to be understood in light of the Bible in order to be properly understood, they will have an excuse: they simply didn't have access to the correct lens through which they could understand creation.

Your third objection is closely related to the second: any evidence that the universe is billions of years old could be interpreted just as validly in favor of a young universe. This view -- that all we have is interpretations, and any interpretation is as good as another -- is pure postmodernism. I think this view is plainly false: for example, I collect (it's weird, I know) flat earth creationist literature. These people argue that the scientific evidence can be understood just as validly as affirming that the earth is flat as that it is round. They give dozens of scientific arguments in favor of a flat earth. But it's all bogus. The evidence clearly supports a round earth and refutes a flat earth. Therefore, scientific evidence can and does speak for itself. It does not equally fit under any interpretation: some interpretations are refuted by the scientific evidence, and some are affirmed by the scientific evidence.

As such, I disagree that the scientific evidence for the age of the earth could be interpreted just as readily in terms of a young earth. There are all kinds of scientific evidences establishing the age of the earth and universe, and they all say the same thing: billions of years.

Your fourth objection is that, if the earth is billions of years old, and animals have been dying the whole time, it would contradict the Bible's claim that death was introduced by the sin of the first human beings. Since Christ died to rescue us from the punishment of sin, i.e. death, to suggest that there was death before sin denies Christ's atonement.

My response to this is: who did Christ die to save? Plants and animals? The obvious answer is he died to save people. The Bible states that human death was introduced by sin; both physical death and spiritual death. But there is nothing in the Bible to suggest that animal and plant death was introduced by sin. This point is made very explicitly in Genesis 3:22-24, Romans 5:12-21, and 1 Corinthians 15:20-58. All of these passages specifically limit their context to human beings, and the latter two directly contrast the death that was initiated with the sin of the first human beings with the salvation which Christ offers to all people; not animals, not plants. There's nothing there, or in any other passages in the Bible, to suggest that the death of non-spiritual beings was not present before the Fall. In fact, God's providence in the predator-prey relationship is sanctioned in the Bible (Job 38:39-40) and is even called "good" (Psalm 104:21, 27-28).

Now the larger issue here is that a universe billions of years old and the occurrence of evolution does not contradict the Bible or Christianity. As I mentioned above, I became a Christian partially through the study of science. It led me to God. The Bible and the universe have the same origin, and so they do not conflict. There are sometimes apparent conflicts, of course, but they are just that: apparent. The fact that those who wish to deprecate religion often use science to do so does not say anything about science itself, and I don't think we should let them tell us what we believe.

L: Jim S.,

I don't know if you will see this, as it has been so long since the last post. I also, have a lot on my plate and am not often able to check out these sites. In any case, thanks for the thoughtful comments and debate.

First, it is not true that some of the early church fathers believed long periods of time as you suggested, that is totally misinformed. You need to go to some deeper sources and do a deeper study on that topic. I am not familiar enough with ALL of them to say NONE of htem believed it, but the VAST majority of early church fathers held to 6 literal days.

Secondly, I do not see ANYTHING in Genesis that would indicate to me or anyone else, from a straightforward, literal reading, that the first week is "God's week" and NOT that of humans. It simply does NOT indicate that in anyway. It talks in plain straightforward language and continues on with no indication whatsoever that his time is different. In fact, you should realize, that God is OUTSIDE OF TIME WHATSOEVER !!! He HAS NO TIME. CLEARLY, that first week was from the point of view of a 6 24 hour days on earth. It does not matter whether the sun was present yet or not, as you stated yourself, GOd was providing the light at that time, and it would be no task at all for God to simulate a normal day on earth.

Thirdly, as far as interpreting GOd's word, you can go deep into theological debates on things which the Bible does not give enough clear information on to made a definite conclusion, and in those instances there are definitely interpretations involved, but the readin in genesis is VERY straighforward, and there is honestly NO interpretation involved, it is just simple reading!! It is only those who WANT to interpret it differently that they need to start weaving and twisthing all kinds of things into it.

As far as the Bible stating that the creation is a reliable witness, again, you are stretching it. REmember, the Earth was CURSED!!! The scriptures were NOT. This earth and the entire universe GROAN due to SIN the BIble tells us. Therefore, ALL of creation was cursed because of sin, not just humans. And remember the FLOOD??? That obviously changed the face of the entire earth as it then was. In fact the Bible says that the Earth "that then was" perished. That throws a bit of a monkey into then trying to look at the earth as it is NOW and interpret it how it was BACK THEN when everything was perfect. ONLY by first interpreting it from scripture can we see clearly the evidence of nature. Remember, ALL evidence IS interpreted, it is NEVER just self interpreting, despite what your training may have taught you. I never said that evidence can "equally fit under ANY interpretation". What I said is that MUCH evidence can be explained with more than ONE interpretation. There are is SOME evidence which currently appears to fit only ONE interpretation, and some of that currently fits the evolutionary theory better, and much of it fits creation better. But, remember, just because only one interpretation may be supported right now does not mean that more information will not be accumulated in the future that would change that as well. Science throughout the ages, has CONTINUOSLY changed it's theories based on newly aquoired information. Remember science once told us the earth was flat, while bible believing christians KNEW it was round, and we were mocked, and even tortured and put to death for our beliefs, but that didn't change the fact that the earth was round just because science didn't believe it, and because they did not have enough information at that time to convincve themselves otherwise.

Much evidence can easily be biewed from AT LEAST TWO different pespectives, or interpretations, and this is VERY common in science today. Many times evolutionists themselves have multiple theories as to some particular piece of evidence or concept, as also happens amongst creation scientists. So my point is that how one CHOOSES to interpret evidence, IS biased by their presuppositions and biases, and that is absolutely true.

I am also shocked by your statement " There are all kinds of scientific evidences establishing the age of the earth and universe, and they all say the same thing: billions of years", because up to that point you have been quite honest and careful in answering things within the realms of it being YOUR opinion etc. To state something like this as a FACT, is a bit mind-boggling. You CLEARLY have NOT studied the issues if you truly believe this. THere is a VAST amount of evidence which strongly supports a young earth. I honely would not know where to start. I can think of literally HUNDREDS of examples. I really cannot believe you would really honestly think this. I fully agree that there are SOME evidences which CURRENTLY favor the evolutionary view, but there are probably MORE that actually favor the young earth creational point of view. And remember, even the ones that do not currently favor creation, does not mean that they NEVER WILL. Also, even MANY staunch evolutionists would agree in an honest manner that there are certainly SOME evidences which CURRENTLY favor the creationist point of view and cause them much grief. They obviously believe similiar to me, that in time more information will be uncovered which will exhonerate their beliefs, but they do agree that CURRENTLY there are certainly evidences which do NOT support their theory. You REALLY need to get out more and do some seriious open minded, subjective searching around and studying if that comment truly reflects your beliefs. There are TONS of evidences which are currently completely inexplicable with evolutionary theory, and are easily explained and accounted for by creation and the flood.

As to your question of who did Christ die to save, the question is obviously mankind, but the Bible is also VERY clear that the entire creation suffered due to sin!!! Genesis clearly indicates that animals were vegetarians before the fall, and God would not look at death, disease and suffering and call it "Good". I'm not sure what kind of picture you have of God, but that is certainly not the God I know and that is clearly revealed in the Bible. All things were PERFECT before the fall, and God clearly indicates that the entire earth was cursed - the ground, the animals, the vegetation, EVERYTHING! Nothing was the same after man sinned.

IN the scriptures you gave concerning the predator-prey relationship - first of all it never calls it "good", you may want to re-read those passages. secondly, more importantly, you seem to forget the whole point here, that after the fall everything changed, and again after the flood again. God did not originally intend for man to eat meat, but after the flood God then told man that just as the herbs were for him to eat, so now were all the beasts. Obviously this was not part of the "good" that God had originally created, but because of the curse in a fallen world, exceptions were made and God made allowances. Just like, in a totally different topic, God never INTENDED for divorce, but He says because of the hardness of man's heart, God made allowances and exceptions, but this does not mean he still "approves of it" or would call it "good". No, sin and death and suffering and disease were NOT part of God's original paradise, but were ALL a part of the curse.

Finally it is wonderful that you became a christian, and it is wonderful that GOD chose your love and study of science from which he would call you to himself, but NEVER confuse that with meaning that science is on the same level as the Holy scriptures. People have been saved through MANY means, people have even been saved through other people who themselves are NOT CHRISTIANS, and have indicated that. I personally know of examples, and have heard accounts of even others, of people who were saved out of churches that do not even preach the true word of God, but their hearts were opened to GOd even through words spoken by unsaved, false teachers, but God can use ANYTHING that he chooses, that does not make the source necessarily "good". Just because your love of science lead you to believe in GOd and give your life to him as a result of something you were lead to believe or understand through science, that does not mean your interpretations of science were NECESSARILY correct or of God's fitting with what really happened. God just chose to use that particular aspect to work in your heart as he saw fit, it was His MERCY, in spite of yourself and your own arrogances and presupositions etc., just as we all have them, and God saves each of us in spite of ourselves.

Jim S.: Let me summarize your points and respond to them in turn. After this, I may not be able to respond at length for a while, since I have term papers to write. Please forgive me if I'm a little brusque, I had to crank this out fairly quickly.

1. You say I'm incorrect about the Church fathers:

it is not true that some of the early church fathers believed long periods of time as you suggested, that is totally misinformed. You need to go to some deeper sources and do a deeper study on that topic. I am not familiar enough with ALL of them to say NONE of htem believed it, but the VAST majority of early church fathers held to 6 literal days.

With all due respect, I have studied this at a deep level, and I'm not wrong. I can prove it. I would reiterate a point I made above, that the Church fathers believed that each passage in Scripture had multiple interpretations. But that does not change the fact that one of the most common interpretations they gave is that the creation days were long periods of time. Another common interpretation was that the events of creation week took place simultaneously in no time, and the days of creation were metaphorical. A few writings you may want to check out are book V of Irenaeus's Against Heresies, book IV of Origen's De Principiis, and Augustine's The Literal Meaning of Genesis. In fact, Augustine argues the day-age interpretation towards the end of The Confessions, which is one of the most famous and widely-read books in Christian history.

In fact, I'm only aware of one passage in the Church fathers that (I would argue) clearly defines the creation days as calendar days. So if you really think the vast majority of them agreed with you, I challenge you to find a couple of passages from them where they clearly define the creation days as calendar days or humankind's days or solar days or 24-hour days or whatever. Note that I'm not asking you to find passages where they mirror the biblical text; I'm asking you to find passages where they explicitly define the creation days as being calendar days.

2. You argue that no one would understand the Bible as teaching anything other than the calendar-day interpretation.

I do not see ANYTHING in Genesis that would indicate to me or anyone else, from a straightforward, literal reading, that the first week is "God's week" and NOT that of humans. It simply does NOT indicate that in anyway. It talks in plain straightforward language and continues on with no indication whatsoever that his time is different. In fact, you should realize, that God is OUTSIDE OF TIME WHATSOEVER !!! He HAS NO TIME. CLEARLY, that first week was from the point of view of a 6 24 hour days on earth. It does not matter whether the sun was present yet or not, as you stated yourself, GOd was providing the light at that time, and it would be no task at all for God to simulate a normal day on earth.

Again, if this is the case, it should be fairly easy to refute the arguments that I gave above. You've barely touched them. For example, I argued that the biblical text clearly represents the days of creation as God's days, because "they make up his workweek, the seventh day is his day of rest." You claimed that the Bible doesn't say that. I find this frankly incredible. Rather than quote the whole creation account here, let me just quote one verse, Genesis 2:2: "By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work." Obviously, the Bible presents the days of creation as God's days. If you don't believe this, supply an argument demonstrating otherwise. In the meantime, the rest of the argument -- that God's experience of time is radically dissimilar from our own (as you acknowledge) and so the creation days should not be understood as humankind's days -- still stands.

Another argument was that the concept of the calendar day is explicitly introduced on day four, so obviously the first three days were not calendar days. You responded that God could have been the source of light to mark the days before the sun appeared in the sky. But i) what does the source of the light have to do with anything? And ii) I acknowledged above that there was light on the earth's surface before day four (Genesis 1:3). So what? Regardless of the fact that there was light, it did not serve to mark calendar days, because calendar days were not so demarcated until day four. What's your argument against that?

You seem to be saying that your position is just blatantly obvious. But saying that emphatically doesn't make it so. If it's that obvious, it will be easy to explain it. How, and in what way, does Genesis 1 and the rest of the Bible define the creation days as calendar days?

3. You argue, as a corollary of point 2, that your understanding of the creation days is not an interpretation but just what the Bible says.

the readin in genesis is VERY straighforward, and there is honestly NO interpretation involved, it is just simple reading!! It is only those who WANT to interpret it differently that they need to start weaving and twisthing all kinds of things into it.

Well, all terms have more than one meaning, and so when we analyze a text to see what meaning is being employed, we are interpreting. You can't avoid it. If the word "interpretation" is a sticking point for you, just substitute the word "understanding" for it. So your interpretation of Genesis 1 is just your understanding of Genesis 1. So now I have to ask: is it possible for us (you in particular) to misunderstand the Bible? I think basic humility requires us to answer this affirmatively.

Bear in mind, I'm not suggesting that the calendar-day interpretation is absurd or unreasonable. I think it is false, and that it cannot be reconciled with the words of the Bible, but I can certainly see why people would understand the Bible that way. The point here is that, while the Bible is perspicuous (lucid or clear) that does not give us the license to read it superficially. There are plenty of biblical passages that superficially seem to be saying something they're not. For example, when Jesus is approached by the rich, young ruler, he seems to flat-out deny that he is God (Matthew 19:17; Mark 10:18; Luke 18:19). But a more in-depth analysis of the text in light of its cultural background shows that he is actually saying the opposite.

4. You argue that the testimony of God's creation cannot be trusted because when humankind fell, creation fell with it.

As far as the Bible stating that the creation is a reliable witness, again, you are stretching it. REmember, the Earth was CURSED!!! The scriptures were NOT. This earth and the entire universe GROAN due to SIN the BIble tells us. Therefore, ALL of creation was cursed because of sin, not just humans.

But all of the statements in the Bible that say God's creation is a reliable witness are made to fallen people living in a fallen world. If the Fall meant that creation's witness was no longer trustworthy, how do you account for the fact that God specifically says that it is trustworthy after the Fall?

As for "stretching it", let me just say that the point I'm arguing here is known as the doctrine of general revelation. It has been the standard view throughout Christian history. I don't think it's stretching it to defend a position that has had such broad acceptance within the Christian community for the last 2000 years.

5. You argue that the testimony of creation cannot be trusted because the flood altered the earth.

And remember the FLOOD??? That obviously changed the face of the entire earth as it then was. In fact the Bible says that the Earth "that then was" perished. That throws a bit of a monkey into then trying to look at the earth as it is NOW and interpret it how it was BACK THEN when everything was perfect.

Again, all of the statements in the Bible that say God's creation is a reliable witness are made after the flood. So obviously, the flood did not affect the reliability of creation's testimony.

As for the Earth "that then was" perishing, this is obviously referring to the people, not the planet Earth. The Hebrew word there is often used to refer to the world's population, in much the same way that we might say, "The whole world is turning away from God." (I would also point out that "everything" before the flood was emphatically not perfect. The people were so evil that God saw fit to destroy them with the flood.)

6. You argue that while facts need to be interpreted language does not. So the only way someone can disagree with your interpretation is by being trained in such a way as to not see it.

ONLY by first interpreting it from scripture can we see clearly the evidence of nature. Remember, ALL evidence IS interpreted, it is NEVER just self interpreting, despite what your training may have taught you.

It seems a little convenient for your position that facts need to be interpreted but language does not. This would entail that no fact can ever refute you, since it can only do so if it is a misinterpretation. It would also entail that no biblical argument can ever refute you, because such an argument would also be a misinterpretation, whereas your understanding is just what the text says. It would follow from this that there is no evidence, whether from God's creation or his Word, that could ever convince you that you have misunderstood something. Of course, I don't think this is the case -- I'm sure you're open to biblical arguments -- but this is what your position would lead to if applied consistently.

But anyway, the "training" I've received allows me to analyze the biblical text in detail, but without missing the forest for the trees. I wasn't brainwashed or indoctrinated.

7. You never meant to suggest the postmodern claim that evidence can fit just as well under any interpretation.

What I said is that MUCH evidence can be explained with more than ONE interpretation. There are is SOME evidence which currently appears to fit only ONE interpretation, and some of that currently fits the evolutionary theory better, and much of it fits creation better.

Then I withdraw the charge. I agree wholeheartedly with your statement that much evidence can be explained more than one way, while some cannot. As to whether some fits evolution or creation better -- you have to remember that I don't think evolution and creation rule each other out. So evidence for evolution is not evidence against creation. Also bear in mind that many Christians who do not accept evolution nevertheless accept that the universe is billions of years old. So evidence for such an age would not be perceived by them as being evidence for evolution or evidence against creation.

8. You argue that science is constantly changing, so we have to take a long term view. The positions of today might be refuted tomorrow.

But, remember, just because only one interpretation may be supported right now does not mean that more information will not be accumulated in the future that would change that as well. Science throughout the ages, has CONTINUOSLY changed it's theories based on newly aquoired information.

This is a standard argument used to defend scientific anti-realism, and I really don't think you want to align yourself with this view. At any rate, I would argue that this argument is a misunderstanding: the scientific facts of 100 years ago have not been refuted or overturned; they have been refined. For example, Einstein's relativity equations refined Newtonian mechanics for some domains of measurement. But Newtonian mechanics wasn't really refuted; its descriptions are still accurate for most things. It was just supplemented to provide a more complete picture.

Of course, there have certainly been theories that were made in the absence of evidence that have since been refuted by the advent of evidence. But we can't use this to justify a general skepticism about science, since many theories are specifically made in light of the evidence. In order for this objection to hold, you would have to show that the particular scientific theory under discussion is not consonant with the facts. But this is precisely how science is usually done.

(As a side issue, I would point out that your example of how science said the earth was flat while Christians said it was round is incorrect. The Western world has known that the earth is round since at least the time of Aristotle, a few centuries before Christ. A good book about this is Jeffrey Burton Russell's Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians.)

9. Since much evidence can be explained in different ways, such evidence is interpreted by what one chooses to believe.

Much evidence can easily be biewed from AT LEAST TWO different pespectives, or interpretations, and this is VERY common in science today. Many times evolutionists themselves have multiple theories as to some particular piece of evidence or concept, as also happens amongst creation scientists. So my point is that how one CHOOSES to interpret evidence, IS biased by their presuppositions and biases, and that is absolutely true.

I think this is a valid point, but you're taking it too far. Let's say we have a fact that can be fitted into three possible hypotheses, A, B, and C. It fits into A and B fairly and equally well, but does not fit in with C as well. So scientists would have to choose between A and B based on other reasons than the fact in question. Now these other reasons are not necessarily just presuppositions that they don't want to give up or think about. It could very well be that the other reasons are further scientific evidence. Moreover, a scientist could say that, while the fact fits better with A and B, it can be made to fit with C, and that there are other things that make C more plausible than A and B, despite their greater consonance with the fact in question. So whether one chooses to accept A, B, or C will be based on many things, and sorting them out can be difficult. So it's not too surprising that there will be scientists who disagree on which theory is best.

But it would not be fair for someone to say that since the fact fits into A, B, and C, it can fit into another theory, D, as well. This simply doesn't follow. Just because we can't decide between multiple theories, we can't thereby say that a theory that is radically inconsistent with them can equally accommodate the facts.

10. You argue that I have overstated my case against a young earth.

I am also shocked by your statement " There are all kinds of scientific evidences establishing the age of the earth and universe, and they all say the same thing: billions of years", because up to that point you have been quite honest and careful in answering things within the realms of it being YOUR opinion etc. To state something like this as a FACT, is a bit mind-boggling. You CLEARLY have NOT studied the issues if you truly believe this. THere is a VAST amount of evidence which strongly supports a young earth. I honely would not know where to start. I can think of literally HUNDREDS of examples.

You're right, I overstated my case. I have not examined every single argument that young-earth creationists have put forth, so I cannot say that every single one of them fails. So my apologies.

I have, however, studied the issues pretty extensively, and all the arguments I've studied purporting to prove a young earth were not merely wrong. They were fraudulent. By this I do not mean that the people who came up with them were being consciously deceptive, but that they were not being intellectually honest or responsible. They essentially take any anomaly and inflate it into the suggestion that the entire paradigm is wrong. The reason this is intellectually dishonest is because this can only be done by ignoring the 99+% of the evidence that supports the paradigm, and doesn't support their replacement paradigm. Virtually any position can be defended with such tactics. Flat-earth creationists depended upon such argumentation in the 19th century.

Here's an illustration: early measurements of some "phenomenon" range between 2 and 5 "units". As measurements become more accurate, they start to range between 2 and 4, and then 2 and 3. Finally, the measurements establish it as 2.3 ± 0.1. Now a young-earth creationist comes along and tells everyone that the figure of 2.3 is wrong, because there is another measurement that puts it at 5, over twice as much. This supposedly shows that the whole framework is bogus. But when we look into it, the measurement of 5 was one of the first ones made, when they weren't very accurate. They just took an anomaly that had since been corrected, and ignored all of the other measurements made since then that overrule it. Moreover, their own position requires that the measurement be 107. So saying it's 5 rather than 2 doesn't really do much to defend their view.

11. You argue there is significant evidence supporting young-earth creationism.

I really cannot believe you would really honestly think this. I fully agree that there are SOME evidences which CURRENTLY favor the evolutionary view, but there are probably MORE that actually favor the young earth creational point of view.

First, let me just point out that you were arguing earlier that we can't trust what God's creation tells us. And now you're suggesting we can, but only if it tells you what you want. I don't think you can have it both ways.

Second, flat-earth creationists came up with literally dozens of "proofs" that the earth is flat and stationary. They arrived at their arguments the same way young-earth creationists have: by ignoring overwhelming evidence and inflating anomalies. So can you explain to me how the young-earth arguments are significantly different from the flat-earth arguments?

Third, let me supply a quote from a former young-earth creationist who became disappointed with it. By God's grace, he was able to see that Christianity did not stand or fall on such arguments.

I took a poll of all 8 of the graduates from ICR's school [Institute for Creation Research] who had gone into the oil industry and were working for various companies. I asked them one question. "From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true?" That is a very simple question. One man, who worked for a major oil company, grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said "No!" A very close friend that I had hired, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. No one else could either.

You can read the whole thing here.

12. Many evolutionists accept that there are some valid creationist arguments.

Also, even MANY staunch evolutionists would agree in an honest manner that there are certainly SOME evidences which CURRENTLY favor the creationist point of view and cause them much grief. They obviously believe similiar to me, that in time more information will be uncovered which will exhonerate their beliefs, but they do agree that CURRENTLY there are certainly evidences which do NOT support their theory.

If by "creationist" you mean any view that ascribes some creative activity to God, and if by "evolutionist" you mean someone who thinks that evolution refutes the existence of God, then I would certainly agree with this. Atheists tend to be very unnerved by Big Bang cosmology, for example, precisely because it proves the existence of a transcendent cause of the universe.

If by "creationist" you mean "young-earth creationist" however, I really doubt this. Could you tell me some of the arguments that evolutionists concede support a young earth?

13. You suggest that I haven't really investigated this issue.

You REALLY need to get out more and do some seriious open minded, subjective searching around and studying if that comment truly reflects your beliefs. There are TONS of evidences which are currently completely inexplicable with evolutionary theory, and are easily explained and accounted for by creation and the flood.

I suspect (if I'm wrong, please correct me) that you're equating any evidence for an old earth and universe with evolution. Let me just reiterate that I see evolution as a completely different issue from the age of the earth and universe. With regards to the former, I'm arguing that evolution is consistent with Christianity. But whether or not it is true is something I'll leave to the experts. My point is that I have no problem with it if it is true.

Regarding the age of the universe, I've spent years investigating this issue, both from the exegetical point of view (i.e. what the Bible says) and the scientific point of view, although I have to admit that I've been out of the loop a bit since returning to school a couple of years ago. I read most of the young-earth journals, and have spent a great deal of time in theology libraries pursuing it. So this is not some decision that I've drifted into because I was influenced by unsavory concerns.

14. You argue that animal death and suffering began at the Fall, not just human death and suffering.

As to your question of who did Christ die to save, the question is obviously mankind, but the Bible is also VERY clear that the entire creation suffered due to sin!!! Genesis clearly indicates that animals were vegetarians before the fall...

The clearest statements about the death that was introduced with the sin of the first people limit their contexts to human beings. The Bible nowhere states that animal or plant death was introduced by the sin of the first human beings

Moreover, in your scenario plants experienced death before the Fall. While the Bible draws the line between human and non-human death, you seem to be drawing it between animals and plants. But this has no basis in the words of the Bible.

I'm perfectly willing to grant that the entire creation fell along with humankind. But I would also suggest that the biblical text is just as easily read to be saying that the fall of creation is referring to Adam and Eve being expelled from the Garden. God told them that, once they left the Garden, the land would be cursed, because they weren't going to be in the paradise God created for them anymore. When he says that thorns and thistles would inhibit their efforts when they tried to plant and harvest crops, this is because they weren't going to be in the paradise God created for them anymore.

Finally, I would argue that the animals in the Garden of Eden were vegetarians. Can you give me a reason to think that the biblical statement applies to animals outside the Garden of Eden as well?

15. People who disagree with you about this do not really worship the God of the Bible.

...and God would not look at death, disease and suffering and call it "Good". I'm not sure what kind of picture you have of God, but that is certainly not the God I know and that is clearly revealed in the Bible.

Are you sure you want to say this? That because I disagree with you about the age of the earth I must not be worshiping the same God as you? That I can't possibly have Jesus as my savior because I disagree with you?

As for your understanding being what "is clearly revealed in the Bible" -- I'm giving biblical arguments that your understanding of the Bible is incorrect. Before you say that anyone who disagrees with you must not really believe in the God of the Bible, you have to deal with their arguments from the Bible that support their claims. Otherwise, anyone can defend any position by saying "the Bible says so". Again, this is precisely what the flat-earth creationists did (and do -- they're still around). They claim the Bible says the earth is flat, and when anyone disagrees with them, they respond, "I'm not sure what kind of picture you have of God, but that is certainly not the God I know and that is clearly revealed in the Bible."

16. The world was perfect before the Fall.

All things were PERFECT before the fall, and God clearly indicates that the entire earth was cursed - the ground, the animals, the vegetation, EVERYTHING! Nothing was the same after man sinned.

Nowhere does the Bible say that things were perfect before the Fall. It says things were very good. This isn't a quibble, it's an important point. The Bible does not say or imply that the original creation was perfect. Moreover, as I've already pointed out, if the animals were vegetarian, then plants experienced death. So your perfect scenario still involved the physical death of physical beings.

I would also point out that the description of conditions of the Garden of Eden do not translate to the rest of the world. Obviously there was something unique about Eden with respect to the rest of the world, or God wouldn't have needed to expel Adam and Eve from it when they sinned.

17. I'm wrong about the Bible calling the predator-prey relationship "good".

IN the scriptures you gave concerning the predator-prey relationship - first of all it never calls it "good", you may want to re-read those passages.

"The lions roar for their prey and seek their food from God. ... These all look to you to give them their food at the proper time. When you give it to them, they gather it up; when you open your hand, they are satisfied with good things." (Psalm 104:21, 27-28)

The word for "good" here is the Hebrew word tov. The primary definition of this term is "good", and I'm unaware of any English translations that do not translate it as "good" in this passage. So not only is God the one who gives the lions their prey, it is specifically called "good".

18. God did not allow people to eat meat until after the flood.

God did not originally intend for man to eat meat, but after the flood God then told man that just as the herbs were for him to eat, so now were all the beasts. Obviously this was not part of the "good" that God had originally created, but because of the curse in a fallen world, exceptions were made and God made allowances.

I agree that people did not receive permission to eat meat until after the flood. I disagree that animals did not or could not eat meat before then. Nor does Genesis 9:1-4 say or imply that animals (not humans) eating meat is wrong and so could not have been a part of the original creation. Again, the passage in point 17 above clearly says that God sanctions the predator-prey relationship, and that it is good. Genesis 9 does not contradict this.

19. Science is not as authoritative as Scripture.

Finally it is wonderful that you became a christian, and it is wonderful that GOD chose your love and study of science from which he would call you to himself, but NEVER confuse that with meaning that science is on the same level as the Holy scriptures.

Well, I certainly think scientists can be mistaken and can be blinded to certain views that would prevent them from seeing some important truths, both scientific and religious. I also think Christians can be blinded to certain views that would prevent them from seeing the correct understanding of Scripture. We're fallen.

But Scripture also says that Scripture is not the only revelation from God. He also reveals himself through his creation. Moreover, it states that the testimony of creation is valid independent of the Bible, since creation is a trustworthy revelation to those who do not have the Scriptures (Psalm 19:1-4; Romans 1:18-20).

So if you're suggesting that God's revelation in Scripture is more authoritative or trustworthy than his revelation in creation, I would simply say that all revelation from God is equally authoritative and trustworthy precisely because it is revelation from God. After all, revelation is revelation; truth is truth. While one truth may be more important than another, it's nonsensical to say that one truth is truer than another.

20. The fact that people can be saved by something does not mean that the "something" by which they were saved is necessarily a good thing.

People have been saved through MANY means, people have even been saved through other people who themselves are NOT CHRISTIANS, and have indicated that. [...] but God can use ANYTHING that he chooses, that does not make the source necessarily "good". Just because your love of science lead you to believe in GOd and give your life to him as a result of something you were lead to believe or understand through science, that does not mean your interpretations of science were NECESSARILY correct or of God's fitting with what really happened. God just chose to use that particular aspect to work in your heart as he saw fit, it was His MERCY, in spite of yourself and your own arrogances and presupositions etc., just as we all have them, and God saves each of us in spite of ourselves.

Of course, I agree with this. I know a philosopher who became a Christian after reading Albert Camus's The Plague, which specifically criticizes Christianity. But while I'm arguing that science is trustworthy, I'm not basing this on the fact that God used science (among other things) to save me. I'm arguing that it's trustworthy because it's the systematic observation of God's creation, and the Bible says that God's creation is a trustworthy and reliable witness. You haven't given any argument to suggest otherwise.

Let me make a few final points:

First, all the claims you've made here, including the suggestion that I must not be worshiping the God of the Bible, are young-earth creationist talking points. By itself, this isn't a problem. But your most recent comment contains almost no argumentation, only assertion. You don't give reasons or evidence for your views, you just state them, claiming that they're just what the Bible says, and move on. You need to argue for your positions. Give me biblical references, and explain how they prove your point.

Second, a main point I'm defending is the doctrine of general revelation. This is not something made up in the 20th century to justify trying to reconcile the Bible with contemporary science. It's a doctrine that goes back to the earliest Christians, who themselves got it directly from the Bible. It has been the standard view throughout Christian history. This doesn't mean it is unassailable, but you seem to just be assuming that it is wrong. You have to defend your position and explain why this widely-held doctrine is incorrect, and why the passages I've cited fail to demonstrate it.

Third, another significant point I've made in earlier comments has been untouched. Namely, that the alleged hostility between science and Christianity is a social construction that is used by people hostile to religion to create the false dichotomy that we have to choose one or the other. I contest this, and ask you and all other Christians who buy into it: why are you letting non-Christians tell you what you believe?

Finally, young-earth creationism is virtually identical to, and historically derived from, the visions of Ellen White, upon which Seventh-Day Adventism was founded in the 19th century. While Seventh-Day Adventism is a genuine denomination today, it was originally very cultic, if not an outright cult. The point being that I don't think it's wise to accept a position that has such questionable origins without doing some very serious analysis first. If you want to read more about this, a good book is Ronald Numbers's The Creationists: The Evolution of Young-Earth Creationism, which was actually endorsed by a prominent young-earth creationist when it came out (Henry Morris). A short essay by Numbers can be read in three parts here, here, and here.

Discuss this post at the Quodlibeta Forum

British Society for the History of Science Dingle Prize

noreply@blogger.com (James) — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 21:55:00 +0000

I hope I can be forgiven for blowing my own trumpet a little.

I am delighted to find God's Philosophers was shortlisted for the British Society for the History of Science's Dingle Prize for 2011. The BSHS awards this every two years for the best book on the history of science for a general audience.

While the Royal Society prize, which I was also shortlisted for, has a much higher profile, I was very pleased to have been recognised by the BSHS since this is the major academic society for the history of science in the UK. The judges would have known their subject and is is great to find that I have managed to keep both scholarly and general readers happy.

The Dingle Prize was won by Patricia Fara's Science: A Four Thousand Year History.

Discuss this post at the Quodlibeta Forum

Moon Meditations

noreply@blogger.com (Jim S.) — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 05:43:00 +0000

One of the so-called anthropic coincidences is that in order for a planet to be capable of supporting life it has to have a moon the size and distance of our own in order to stabilize its axis. Some scientists have argued recently that this claim is exaggerated. Specifically, they argue that the larger planets in the solar system would have had a similar effect on the earth, preventing the earth's axis from fluctuating more than about 10 degrees, and that is not significant enough to prevent the existence of life. The earth -- and by extension, any potential life-site -- does not require a moon like the one we have. The article, unfortunately, does not cite a scientific study showing this, only that "astronomers at the University of Idaho have shown" it. Regardless, this is an interesting claim, since most of the studies on the anthropic principle have been in the direction of showing more numerous and more extreme examples of anthropic coincidences, so to have an example going the other way is intriguing. I mentioned this criterion in my series on the anthropic principle (part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4), but my focus on it was in the final entry where I pointed out that having a moon the particular size and distance of our own allows for scientific observation rather than the possibility of life.

Discuss this post at the Quodlibeta Forum

Toby Huff's Dangerous Curiosity

noreply@blogger.com (James) — Thu, 11 Aug 2011 20:46:00 +0000

Toby Huff’s last book The Rise of Early Modern Science: Islam, China and the West was a brave attempt to answer one of the most difficult questions that the history of science presents. Why, asked Huff, did the scientific revolution happen in the West rather than in China or the Islamic world? You might add ancient Greece and India to the list of places the scientific revolution didn’t happen.

Asking this and then answering it too made Huff wildly unpopular with some historians. He’s a sociologist himself which provided one convenient stick to beat with which to beat him. Other reviewers variously implied he was an imperialist or even a racist. His real crime was to suggest that there was something culturally important about the West that made its science more effective than anyone else’s. Huff, in other words, is an anti-relativist.

As someone who is quite comfortable with the idea that western civilisation is the best thing that has ever happened to human beings, I think Huff deserves serious attention. He asks a question that you are not supposed to ask and gives answers that enrage his opponents. I’m not going to deal here with where I agree and disagree with Huff on specifics. But I wholly support his project of a comparative sociological approach which asks what cultural features make a difference to the way that each civilisation does science. And he is absolutely right to say that modern science is the only science that gives us consistently accurate theories about nature.

Unfortunately, because The Rise of Early Modern Science was a book of grand themes and broad sweep, it also contained too many factual errors. Huff prepared a second edition that dealt with many of these, but the feeling remains that he did not lay sufficient empirical foundations to carry his thesis. Neither did Said, Frazer or Foucault (let alone Marx), but we’ll let that pass.

So Huff’s new book, Intellectual Curiosity and the Scientific Revolution: A Global Perspective (Cambridge 2011), is far more factual then his last one. In the first part, he looks at how the telescope was received in China, India and the Ottoman Empire. The story of the Jesuits’ effort to demonstrate the superiority of western science at the court of the Chinese Emperor is particularly fascinating. It was also amusing to hear that the first recorded instance of the telescope being used in Constantinople was to spy on the Sultan’s harem! Huff’s point is that the telescope did not kick off a new era of scientific research in other civilisations in the way it did in Europe. He puts this down to a lack of scientific curiosity, but wisely doesn’t try to explain what might have caused this.

The second part of the book compares the course of different sciences through the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in Europe and elsewhere. A lot of the European material is very familiar, but it is enlivened by stories from elsewhere. But the central theme that European science cracked on at an increasing pace while the rest of the world showed little interest is forcefully made.

Its more modest ambition probably makes Intellectual Curiosity and the Scientific Revolution a better academic monograph than The Rise of Early Modern Science. But it is surely a lot less fun. Sacred cows litter the pages of the earlier book and it is so bracing to read a sociologist who is not caught in the headlights of political correctness. The combative Huff is less visible in the new book. It remains essential reading for all historians of science, but most of them will probably ignore it and hope that they can continue to avoid the difficult questions that Huff insists on asking.

Discuss this post at the Quodlibeta Forum

Maverick

noreply@blogger.com (Jim S.) — Sat, 06 Aug 2011 19:04:00 +0000

You should be reading Maverick Philosopher if you're not already. It's written by Bill Vallicella who grew tired of academia and now expresses his masterful metaphysical musings online. For the neophytes, try starting with his posts on eliminative materialism.

Discuss this post at the Quodlibeta Forum

Age Issues

noreply@blogger.com (Jim S.) — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 12:08:00 +0000

I just finished a short series of posts on my other blog about the Bible and the age of the universe. In retrospect, I think I could have cross-posted them here. If anyone's interested in reading them, here are the links: part 1, part 2, part 3.

Discuss this post at the Quodlibeta Forum

Maimonides was a Muslim ...

noreply@blogger.com (Jim S.) — Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:33:00 +0000

... according to UNESCO. Who knew?

(Plus, from the comments, "Maimonides is not their monides.")

Discuss this post at the Quodlibeta Forum

On writing history of science for the general reader

noreply@blogger.com (James) — Sat, 16 Jul 2011 20:22:00 +0000

Rebekah Higgitt’s new blog, Teleskopos, has a post about popular history of science writing. She asks for some thoughts on the tricks required to communicate academic history of science to a wide audience. I am, of course, a writer of popular science history so I thought I’d flatter myself into thinking that I might be able to provide Rebekah with some thoughts from inside the bubble. Just treat the below as random musings on lessons learnt the hard way…

Firstly, Rebekah quotes scholars who found it hard to write for a http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifgeneralhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif audience because they were required to be direct. They had to say what they thought “without the customary allusion to the way in which the same evidence could possibly be interpreted in different ways.” Now, I think this is a fault with academic writing rather than with popular books. The two best books by academics I’ve read over the last few years are Bad Medicine by David Wootton and The Fall of the Rome and the End of Civilisation by Bryan Ward-Perkins. Both are arguments that present the evidence and knock down the opposition. Both authors have the confidence to believe they are right and their opponents are wrong. Some editors advise that each chapter you write should have a key message that you can summarise in a single short sentence. If you need more than one sentence, use shorter chapters.

Second, there is the question of writing style. The first draft of God’s Philosophers never got shown to anyone. I made the mistake of thinking the second draft was quite good. It got me an agent and some friends said they really liked it. But no publisher would touch it. The third draft found a publisher (thank you Icon, thank you) and the fourth got published. You might say each rewrite was more “dumbed down” than the last but even so, many people find the final product is still too difficult to enjoy. I found this extremely frustrating, but books for the general public are to be enjoyed. People won’t read something for pleasure unless it gives them pleasure. Academics completely over-estimate the level of writing that they must use for trade books. So you should not test your book on your colleagues or friends. You should find someone who not only knows little about the history of science but has also never shown the slightest interest in it. And if they politely say it was OK but a bit hard going, you are going to have to rewrite from the start.

Third, if you are like me and don’t have some amazing literary talent, you will need to learn how to write for a general audience. I think the best way to find out how is to read loads of the books that non-academics read. And that does not mean literary fiction or those general histories of the Thirty Years War or early Middle Ages that only Penguin can get away with publishing. For trade non-fiction, the best exemplars are rarely historians. They are more likely to be journalists. Recent books that I’d suggest anyone would do well to model their style on include Matt Ridley’s The Rational Optimist, Freakonomics and Tim Harford’s The Undercover Economist (techno thrillers by the likes of Frederick Forsyth are also good). The reason these books sell is that they explain concepts simply, clearly and entertainingly. Yes, Richard Dawkins can do this too, but most people will be extremely hard-pushed to pull off his technique. The same goes for writers of the calibre of Simon Schama. So I think it’s best to aim for clear and simple.

Fourth, trade books do need anecdotes, narrative and human interest. Personally, I’d like to see more of this in academic books too. Partly this is because history is made by people. So, books about history need to be books about people too. But it is also far easier to tell a story through people than through ideas. For popular writing, a key technique is to show, not to tell. You need to show the reader your characters doing things, saying things and achieving things. That way you can get a historiographical message across through the medium of narrative.

Finally, don’t make the mistake of believing that the market for history of science is very big. God’s Philosophers is probably in the top five bestsellers in this genre over the last couple years but that was achieved with total sales that barely reach five figures. The really big sellers in history of science, Dava Sobel and Bill Bryson, are genre-busters which broke out of the narrow market. Unfortunately, they are no more likely to make their readers more widely interested in history of science than I was going to become a fan of chick-lit because I once read Bridget Jones (another genre-buster).
Discuss this post at the Quodlibeta Forum

I was told there would be no math myth

noreply@blogger.com (Jim S.) — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 05:32:00 +0000

In two earlier posts I argued that the stories of Jesus in the New Testament cannot be explained (or explained away) as either mythological or as urban legend. I should clarify some of the issues involved as well as the difference between the two, bearing in mind that I'm not an expert.

Mythology has many elements to it, but here I'll focus on two. First, it develops over a long period of time. It's sometimes compared to the game of telephone, where one person whispers something in someone else's ear, the second person whispers to a third, etc. After several people, the story has become mangled. This, however, is incomplete. A closer parallel would be the same game where every third or fourth person has to say what he heard aloud, and allow himself to be corrected by the first person. So with mythology: it takes a long time for it to replace the original story because the original is still available and has more credibility.

The telephone game analogy suggests that mythology evolves slowly over time. It should be noted, however, that the inaccurate ideas may arise quickly. What takes a long time is the replacement of the original with the myth. The collective memory of the actual events simply takes a long time to dissipate. A. N. Sherwin-White argued in Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament that two or three generations was too short a time to have the original story replaced by a myth. Indeed, when it was first suggested in the 19th century that the accounts of Jesus in the Bible are mythological, it was assumed that none of them were written until the late 2nd century, since that's how long it would have taken for a myth of that magnitude to arise and be widely accepted. At least there aren't any known examples of it happening faster. Indeed, were this not the case, we would virtually have to abandon the field of ancient history, since almost no ancient historical writings were written close in time to the events they narrate. Since all but a few of the books of the New Testament are dated by scholars to within the first century, the time necessary for them to be mythological simply isn't there. In fact, there is no competing story other than the one found in the gospels until you get to the mid to late second century. As William Lane Craig writes:

The letters of Barnabus and Clement refer to Jesus’ miracles and resurrection. Polycarp mentions the resurrection of Christ, and Irenaeus relates that he had heard Polycarp tell of Jesus’ miracles. Ignatius speaks of the resurrection. Quadratus reports that persons were still living who had been healed by Jesus. Justin Martyr mentions the miracles of Christ. No relic of a nonmiraculous story exists. That the original story should be lost and replaced by another goes beyond any known example of corruption of even oral tradition, not to speak of the experience of written transmissions. These facts show that the story in the Gospels was in substance the same story that Christians had at the beginning. (emphasis mine)

A second element of mythology is that it functions as a literary genre. This is a very important point: as the story changes, so does the way it is told. To suggest that the ancients could have written mythology but not in the genre of mythological writings is simply incoherent; these were two aspects of one thing. It is only in the Modern era that we have classified these literary genres and how they function. So in order for someone in the ancient world to write a mythological story but not in the mythological genre is to suggest that he foresaw the development of Modern literary criticism and adjusted his style of writing in order to trick his future readers -- two millennia in the future -- into thinking that the stories he was telling were not mythological when they really were. This is about as conspiracy theory-ish as you can get without spontaneously combusting.

One aspect of the process of mythologization is that it tends to eliminate irrelevant details -- either by simply erasing them or by ascribing some meaning to them (thus eliminating their irrelevancy). In a myth, every element has a role to play, but historical writings record things that are "messy", that don't have some meaning to the overall story. The biblical accounts of Jesus are replete with such little details. Several times before Jesus would speak to people, Mark records him sighing deeply (7:34; 8:11-13) or gazing at them intently (3:5, 34; 10:23). When a crowd brings an adultress before Jesus, he stoops down and doodles in the dust with his finger (John 8:2-11). A few copies of the New Testament several centuries later tried to accommodate this by adding that Jesus wrote down the sins of the woman's accusers to show that they were not without sin. That's exactly how mythology works, by changing the details so that they have some relevance to the story.

Gregory Boyd gave several examples of this in John 20:1-8 in a letter he wrote to his non-Christian father, later published as Letters from a Skeptic (I should note that I disagree with Boyd on some of the points he makes here):

Early on the first day of the week (when? does it matter?), while it was still dark (who cares?), Mary Magdalene (an incriminating detail, see the next criteria) went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved (John's modest way of referring to himself -- another mark of genuineness) and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him!" (note her lack of faith here) So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. They were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first (John's modesty again, but who cares about this irrelevant detail?). He bent over (the tomb entrance was low -- a detail which is historically accurate for tombs of wealthy people of the time -- the kind we know Jesus was buried in) and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in (why not? irrelevant detail). Then Simon Peter, who was behind him (modest repetition again), arrived and went into the tomb (Peter's boldness stands out in all the Gospel accounts). He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head (irrelevant detail -- what was Jesus wearing?). The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen (could anything be more irrelevant, and more unusual, than this, Dad? Jesus folded one part of His wrapping before He left!). Finally the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went inside (who cares about what exact order they went in?).

The presence of little details like this should not be understood as absolute. Fully mythological stories can have irrelevant details, and historical writings can show how little details were actually relevant to what was going on. The point is that in general, the more such details there are, the less mythologized the story is. This gives us the ability to test how far along the mythologization process a story is.

Here's a non-biblical example: The Voyage of Saint Brendan is an early medieval text describing an Irish monk who built a small leather boat and, essentially, sailed it around the North Atlantic Ocean. Tim Severin, in The Brendan Voyage, relates how his wife, an expert in medieval literature, thought that The Voyage of Saint Brendan was a partially mythologized story of something that actually happened.

"There's something odd about the Saint Brendan text," remarked my wife Dorothy one evening. Her casual comment immediately caught my attention.

"What do you mean by 'odd'?" I asked her.

"The text doesn't match up with much of the other literature written at about the same time. The best way to explain it is that it doesn't have the same feel. It's a curiosity. ... The story has a remarkable amount of practical detail, far more than most early medieval texts. It tells you about the geography of the places Brendan visits. It carefully describes the progress of the voyage, the times and distances, and so forth. It seems to me that the text is not so much a legend as a tale that is embroidering a first-hand experience."

Severin decided to build a leather boat out of the same material that would have been available in that particular part of Ireland at that particular time and sail it across the North Atlantic (à la Kon-Tiki). Not only did he successfully sail from Ireland to North America (via the Faroes and Iceland), he learned that a leather boat had great advantages over wooden ones: at one point, they struck an iceberg strong enough that it would have punched a hole in a wooden boat, big enough to sink it. A leather boat, however, can be sewn up en route.

Anyway, the point is that no scholar has ever suggested that the gospels are written in the genre of mythology. Those who have argued that they are mythological (primarily in the late 19th century) said they should be understood this way despite the genre in which they are written. In fact, this is so blatant, so screamingly obvious, that you can verify it yourself: simply read the gospels side-by-side with actual mythological writings -- not modern retellings of mythological stories, but the actual myths themselves. It's obvious that they're not in the same genre. Until fairly recently, it's been a contentious point what genre the gospels belong to, other than that they were roughly historical writings. But in the last few decades, scholars have accepted that they are written in the genre of ancient biography, similar to Diogenes Laërtius's Lives of the Eminent Philosophers. As I pointed out here, that doesn't mean that they are historically accurate in every detail, but it certainly makes it very difficult to claim that they are inaccurate in their central claims.

I've spent an inordinate amount of time on mythology. Urban legend is simpler: it basically lacks many of these elements. An urban legend is not based on a long process of mythologization but on someone telling a false story. Thus, in contrast with actual mythology, urban legends do not replace the original story, they are, in a sense, competing with it. Having said that, urban legends are similar to mythology in that they will often lack the irrelevant details that we find in veridical accounts. Urban legends are trying to make a point, and so simply ignore the details that don't play a role in this. In my post on this, I argue that the people who originated an urban legend either a) simply made it up (i.e. they lied); b) hallucinated; c) experienced something they mistook for something else (such as nondescript lights in the sky which are mistaken for alien spacecraft); or d) were insane (didn't really experience anything, but now actually think they did). The biblical accounts of Jesus cannot fit into any of these categories. Rather than rehearse them here, I'll just commend you to my earlier post.

Incidentally, if you haven't read The Brendan Voyage, I strongly recommend it.

(cross-posted at Agent Intellect)

Discuss this post at the Quodlibeta Forum

Practicing what you preach

noreply@blogger.com (James) — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 16:26:00 +0000

Is religion about belief or practice? Most of us would answer “both” without much hesitation, especially if our main experience was of Christianity. But it may not be quite so simple. Sociologists of religion have long noted that while religious practices can be openly shared, beliefs are private and more difficult to get at. Many Christians are not really sure how much of the Creed they actually believe, at least in the solid everyday way that they believe that their car is a Ford Escort.

Peter Lipton, the fondly-remembered professor of the philosophy of science at King’s College Cambridge, called himself a practicing Jew. And, given that he took his family to synagogue every Saturday and observed the relevant festivals with enthusiasm, it was hard to contradict him. But he was also an atheist. He admitted that it was probably harder for a Christian to separate the practical from the faithful side of his religion. But he proved that “religion as practice” is a real phenomena and one that new atheists have never really got a handle on.

Unlike Dawkins and Co, archaeologists and sociologists prefer religion to be defined as a set of practices because these can be observed. Frankly, we haven’t a clue what the ancient Greeks really thought of their gods. And I fear if we did, it might disappoint our conception of the Greeks as a particularly rational tribe. But it is an academic commonplace to state that ancient Greek religion was a matter of performing the rituals properly rather than buying into the theology. Ramsay MacMullen’s Christianising the Roman Empire 100AD to 400AD is expressed in this mode. MacMullen tries to explain pagan conversion to Christianity without any reference to theology. Beliefs are completely irrelevant to his account. Clearly, this is not a very convincing tale but it is not clear what choice he has. Even Rodney Stark, in his far more sympathetic account of the rise of Christianity, concentrates on practice and not belief.

(By the way, there’s another reason MacMullen’s book should be treated with caution. He has a chapter on Christian persecution of pagans in the late fourth century. But his main example of such persecution is the description of the deadly force used against the pagans of Gaza in an account called the Life of Porphyry. This is odd because MacMullen is well aware that the Life of Porphyry is a fictional account written perhaps two hundred years after the events it purports to describe. Yet without it, MacMullen’s evidence of deadly Christian attacks on pagans is extremely thin.)

Peter Harrison’s chapter in Science and Religion: New Historical Perspectives (edited by Thomas Dixon, Geoffrey Cantor and Stephen Pumfrey) tries to explain where we got the idea of religion as belief instead of ritual. Harrison suggests that, just as modern science did not exist until the early nineteenth century, so “religion as faith” is also a modern category. Our modern definition of a religion as a bundle of beliefs dates, he says, from the Enlightenment. Eighteenth-century philosophers created “religion” by trying to force Christianity into the same boxes that they had used to understand science. While this almost works for Christianity, it becomes wildly inappropriate for most other kinds of ritual behaviour.

That, suggests Harrison, might be where the conflict between science and religion comes from: both are defined as a collection of beliefs and as those beliefs are not the same, you could say that there is a conflict. But if it is more correct to say that religion is a series of practices, there is nothing very much for science to conflict with. Appealing though this idea might be, I don’t buy it. It seems clear to me that Christianity does have a Creed and a set of core beliefs. Whether these beliefs are more often inimical then conducive to science is an interesting question. But science and religion do interact at the level of what they both have to say about reality. We can’t spirit away any conflict by claiming religion is about what you do rather than what you think.
Discuss this post at the Quodlibeta Forum

Basil Mitchell, RIP

noreply@blogger.com (Jim S.) — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 09:31:00 +0000

Basil Mitchell, one of the most important contemporary Christian philosophers, passed away a few days ago at the age of 94. You can read his Gifford Lectures online, entitled Morality, Religious and Secular.

(cross-posted at Agent Intellect)

Discuss this post at the Quodlibeta Forum

Quote of the Day

noreply@blogger.com (Jim S.) — Sat, 25 Jun 2011 21:55:00 +0000

The first argument in favour of physical determinism is that from the success of science. Scientists have been singularly successful in explaining, predicting and controlling events in the last three hundred years, and it is claimed that it is a plausible extrapolation to suppose that they will go on being successful until they have explained all there is to explain. "But" as a leading physicist has cautioned, "one must beware of supposing that one can extrapolate indefinitely the range over which reasonably accurate predictions can be made. The original evidence for predictability was experimental; other experimental evidence can, and in company with most other physicists, I believe has, disproved such an indefinite extension." We may also, on a different tack, complain that scientists achieve their success in answering certain questions at the price of not addressing themselves to other questions. Many problems are ignored by the scientist on the score of their not being scientific problems. The canons of irrelevance are widely drawn. And therefore the success of science, although real, is limited.

The point is conceded, in practice, by most scientists. They admit that there are many questions they cannot answer, and that there are things they can learn from art criticism, moral philosophy, theology or politics. But the physicalist, who believes that everything can be explained in terms of physics, regards this as only a temporary imperfection. When all the laws of physics are known, and all predictions can be calculated, then all questions that can be properly asked will be answerable, and all that cannot be answered in his terms will be said to be unaskable, or mere coincidence. It is a Procrustean programme; but cannot be rejected simply because of that.

More telling still is the consideration that many forms of scientific explanation are not of the Hempelian form, of covering laws and initial conditions. Hardly any biological explanation is of this form, nor any geological one. Nor are most chemical ones, nor even many physical ones. Chemical explanations are very often time-independent. They show why some configuration is stable, rather than calculate how it changes with the passage of time. They are in terms of symmetries and group operators, not initial conditions and laws of development. So far as the practice of scientists go, there is little reason to fix on regularity explanation as the paradigm form of scientific explanation. Nevertheless the physicalist does so, and brushes off all other forms of scientific explanation as derivative and subsidiary. He does not disallow the questions from being asked, but is sure that he will have the answers, when his own physicalist scheme is complete.

Physical determinism is thus not a simple extrapolation from the success of science. It selects one pattern of scientific explanation in preference to others, not because the others have been found to be less sucessful in practice, but because the one is felt to be more explanatory in principle. There is a rational appeal about regularity explanation which makes us feel that it must be the paradigm of explanation, quite apart from any practical success it has had. Moreover, materialism has great metaphysical charm. We often feel that it must be true, not because it has been borne out by science but because it seems the only possible world view. Much of the pressure towards determinism is generated by a metaphysical materialism which we find compelling on its own account, quite apart from its determinist implications. In order to understand physical determinism we therefore need to appreciate the metaphysical pressures in favour of materialism.

J. R. Lucas
The Freedom of the Will
(footnotes omitted)

Discuss this post at the Quodlibeta Forum

The Craig-Hitchens Debate

noreply@blogger.com (Jim S.) — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 11:59:00 +0000

Here it is in its entirety. It's almost two years old at this point, though, so it's not really cutting edge.

Discuss this post at the Quodlibeta Forum