I did take mom to go see the movie today. I enjoyed it and thought they
did a good job of getting the point across. Like the books, it was
mainly just looking at the scientific evidence and the different >interpretations, and how we've learned so much more in the last 100
years. I also like the fact that they concentrate on the exact same 3 >things I do in deciding how to move forward interpreting scientific >evidence.
The Origin of the Universe,
the Fine Tuning problem,
and the
Origin of Life.
Everything else is just noise.
I did take mom to go see the movie today.-a I enjoyed it and thought they did a good job of getting the point across.-a Like the books, it was
mainly just looking at the scientific evidence and the different interpretations, and how we've learned so much more in the last 100
years.-a I also like the fact that they concentrate on the exact same 3 things I do in deciding how to move forward interpreting scientific evidence.-a The Origin of the Universe, the Fine Tuning problem, and the Origin of Life. Everything else is just noise.
On 5/12/2026 6:43 PM, sticks wrote:
I did take mom to go see the movie today.-a I enjoyed it and thought
they did a good job of getting the point across.-a Like the books, it
was mainly just looking at the scientific evidence and the different
interpretations, and how we've learned so much more in the last 100
years.-a I also like the fact that they concentrate on the exact same 3
things I do in deciding how to move forward interpreting scientific
evidence.-a The Origin of the Universe, the Fine Tuning problem, and
the Origin of Life. Everything else is just noise.
In the Book Meyers lied to the rubes by treating his god-of-the-gaps
denial as independent bits of obfuscation and denial.-a He did not
develop a coherent god hypothesis that would deal honestly with the gaps that he put up.-a He was just fooling the rubes by telling them to look
at each gap as some interesting bit of denial of reality.-a God has to
fill each gap even though they do not have a clue as to how that was
done.-a Meyer lies to the rubes like you about his gap denial supporting their religious beliefs in the Biblical god.-a The Big Bang is #1 of the
Top Six, Fine tuning is #2 of the Top Six, The origin of life is #3 of
the Top six.-a Meyer's own Cambrian explosion gap denial is #5 of the top six and Behe's flagellum as a designed machine gap denial is #4 of the
top six the Scientific creationists gaps in the fossil record gap denial
is #6 of the Top Six.-a The Top Six do not support YEC Biblical creationism.-a The designer that fills those gaps is not the Biblical
god.-a Most of the creationist support for the ID scam continues to come from YEC that want to believe the lie about ID being a big tent that can cover all creationist beliefs.-a The fact is that nature is not Biblical, science is just the study of nature, and any science whether you call it
ID science or creation science is never going to support Biblical literalism.-a Even old earth literalists like Reason to Believe can't use the Top Six to support their creation model.
It sounds like they do the same thing in the movie.-a You should be able
to understand how you are being lied to by just trying to form an honest
and coherant god hypothesis out of the Top Six.-a You end up with
something that isn't Biblical.-a MarkE and all the other IDiots could not deal honestly with the Top Six and they quit supporting the ID scam or decided to run from reality like MarkE.-a You seem to have decided to run from reality.-a Why do you think that the movie did not make it very
clear that the top three gaps were not consistent with the Biblical
creation mythology?
You should deal with the thread "The reason that the Top Six killed the
ID scam on TO".-a It demonstrates why the Reason to Believe old earth creationists are no longer ID scam supporters.-a They try to deal with
the Big Bang, the fine tuning, and the actual origin of life on this
planet and end up with something that just doesn't make very much
Biblical sense, and they have to add things to the Bible and even
rewrite part to try to make their model consistent with reality.
It is obvious that YEC only use the Big Bang to lie to themselves about reality.-a The YEC scientific creationists used the Big Bang as something that science could not explain, and the AIG has a planetarium show that features the Big Bang, but they only use the Big Bang as science denial.
-aThey know that the Big Bang does not support YEC because it is one of
the science topics that the creationists have tried to remove from state science standards in multiple states, and they succeeded in doing that
along with removing biological evolution and understanding radio
isotopes from the chemistry classes in Kansas back in 1999.-a #1 of the
Top Six has been understood not to be Biblical by the literalists with a clue for a very long time.
The ID perps continue to use the Big Bang because it still fools the creationist rubes that want to be lied to.-a It should not fool any creationist rube that understand how the Big Bang fits into reality.
Ron Okimoto
I did take mom to go see the movie today.-a I enjoyed it and thought they did a good job of getting the point across.-a Like the books, it was
mainly just looking at the scientific evidence and the different interpretations, and how we've learned so much more in the last 100
years.-a I also like the fact that they concentrate on the exact same 3 things I do in deciding how to move forward interpreting scientific evidence.-a The Origin of the Universe, the Fine Tuning problem, and the Origin of Life. Everything else is just noise.
On 5/12/2026 6:43 PM, sticks wrote:
I did take mom to go see the movie today.-a I enjoyed it and thought
they did a good job of getting the point across.-a Like the books, it
was mainly just looking at the scientific evidence and the different
interpretations, and how we've learned so much more in the last 100
years.-a I also like the fact that they concentrate on the exact same 3
things I do in deciding how to move forward interpreting scientific
evidence.-a The Origin of the Universe, the Fine Tuning problem, and
the Origin of Life. Everything else is just noise.
Why did you enjoy the film?-a You can search the Web and YEC are warning against being "confused" about the issue if they go see the movie.-a They
do not want Christians to understand that the Big Bang means that the creation has been evolving for billions of years.-a Part of the fine
tuning argument is that it took 8 billion years to create the element
that our solar system is made of in our star poor portion of the Galaxy
to insure that all the elements needed for life were present during the creation of the earth.-a The elements needed for life were created by
dying stars that lived out their life cycles or collided with each other.
I have not read the book, but Meyer claimed that he got around the anti- Biblical issues by treating the gaps as independent entities, and he
only discussed the gaps and not how they related to each other.-a I asked google and google claims that Meyer does not give a Big Bang creation
time line in his book.-a He instead dealt with the science that went into supporting the Big Bang, and not the particulars of the Big Bang
itself.-a Meyer just produced something to fool the rubes, and did not
deal with how the god that filled each individual gap was not the
Biblical god.
You claim that you are some type of YEC.-a How were you fooled by the Movie?
An honest representation of the Big Bang (#1 of the Top Six), fine
tuning (#2 of the Top Six) and the origin of life (#3 of the Top Six)
could never support YEC Biblical creationism.-a If you have looked into
the Reason to Believe's old earth Biblical creation model you should understand that they can't make them fit into their literal
interpretation without adding things to the Bible.-a They even have to rewrite the 4th day scenario to try to make it consistent with the Big
Bang and fine tuning gaps.-a The YEC scientific creationists used to use
the same gap denial arguments (Big Bang, fine tuning, and origin of
life) but they only used them as denial arguments to fool the rubes,
just like the ID perps.-a They only present them as independent bits of denial, and the rubes are supposed to forget about one before being lied
to about the next one.-a The YEC rubes are never supposed to understand
how the gaps fit into reality.-a The ID perps killed the ID scam on TO because they presented the Top Six "in the order in which they must have occurred in this universe."-a MarkE continues to run from the Top Six because that order is not Biblical.
MarkE understands that he needs to wallow in the denial and he can't
deal honestly with the fact that the god that fills his gaps is not the
god described in the Bible.-a Why would anyone enjoy wallowing in denial
of reality?
Ron Okimoto
On Tue, 12 May 2026 18:43:34 -0500, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
wrote:
I did take mom to go see the movie today. I enjoyed it and thought they >did a good job of getting the point across. Like the books, it was
mainly just looking at the scientific evidence and the different >interpretations, and how we've learned so much more in the last 100
years. I also like the fact that they concentrate on the exact same 3 >things I do in deciding how to move forward interpreting scientific >evidence.
Anyway, let's look at your story. According to you, we have:
The Origin of the Universe,
God did it.
the Fine Tuning problem,
God did it.
and the
Origin of Life.
God did it.
Everything else is just noise.
I thought you were a YEC. Anyway, your "story" of everything is also
God did it.
So how do your ideas inform you about anything other than you've
learned how to say "God did it"? Or along the same lines, how do you
"move forward" with your story, without just using those same three
words again and again?
Well, it's obvious; anything that Science can't explain (or can be
challenged about) shows God at His mightiest; slipping in the odd thing
here and there to baffle those pesky heathens.
On Tue, 12 May 2026 18:36:35 -0700
Vincent Maycock <maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2026 18:43:34 -0500, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
wrote:
I did take mom to go see the movie today. I enjoyed it and thought they >> >did a good job of getting the point across. Like the books, it was
mainly just looking at the scientific evidence and the different
interpretations, and how we've learned so much more in the last 100
years. I also like the fact that they concentrate on the exact same 3
things I do in deciding how to move forward interpreting scientific
evidence.
Anyway, let's look at your story. According to you, we have:
The Origin of the Universe,
God did it.
the Fine Tuning problem,
God did it.
and the
Origin of Life.
God did it.
Everything else is just noise.
I thought you were a YEC. Anyway, your "story" of everything is also
God did it.
So how do your ideas inform you about anything other than you've
learned how to say "God did it"? Or along the same lines, how do you
"move forward" with your story, without just using those same three
words again and again?
Well, it's obvious; anything that Science can't explain (or can be
challenged about) shows God at His mightiest; slipping in the odd thing
here and there to baffle those pesky heathens.
I'm all for a young earth, it makes me feel younger too. (It's 12C
and nearly summer here; I blame the weather, though, nice as it would
be to blame an uncaring god).
On 5/19/2026 7:00 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
Well, it's obvious; anything that Science can't explain (or can be
challenged about) shows God at His mightiest; slipping in the odd thing
here and there to baffle those pesky heathens.
Either you are not reading already answered questions, or you just
refuse to hear them. You are essentially making the claim these are
Gaps in scientific knowledge the theist fills with "Must be the actions
of God." The same tired old, we don't know so God must have done it.
That is not at all what the movie does. As I have said before, they are
not gaps, but closed doors. Evidence is shown that explains why it is >believed these things could not have happened materialistically.
I would like to hear someone actually address some of the evidence and
points made instead of just making silly and uninformed Goddidit
remarks. Are you capable of that?
What is also interesting is that you in effect do the same thing you >constantly accuse creationists of regarding gaps, in your case it's
called "Materialism of the Gaps."
You feel you don't have to answer
questions because of your confidence these gaps for the materialist will >eventually be filled.
Somehow it must have happened, because here we
are. No matter what the analysis and interpretation of evidence from
design proponents is, you will just fall back to "We don't yet know"
without ever addressing the facts they present.
FWIW, I only answered this post because I have seen you around for years
and never got the feeling your were knee-jerk or stupid. Others in this >thread do not get that accommodation. I don't expect to change your >opinion, just think about how you react to others, John.
On 5/19/2026 7:00 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
Well, it's obvious; anything that Science can't explain (or can be
challenged about) shows God at His mightiest; slipping in the odd thing
here and there to baffle those pesky heathens.
Either you are not reading already answered questions, or you just
refuse to hear them.-a You are essentially making the claim these are
Gaps in scientific knowledge the theist fills with "Must be the actions
of God."-a The same tired old, we don't know so God must have done it.
That is not at all what the movie does.-a As I have said before, they are not gaps, but closed doors.-a Evidence is shown that explains why it is believed these things could not have happened materialistically.-a I
would like to hear someone actually address some of the evidence and
points made instead of just making silly and uninformed Goddidit
remarks.-a Are you capable of that?
What is also interesting is that you in effect do the same thing you constantly accuse creationists of regarding gaps, in your case it's
called "Materialism of the Gaps." You feel you don't have to answer questions because of your confidence these gaps for the materialist will eventually be filled.-a Somehow it must have happened, because here we are.-a No matter what the analysis and interpretation of evidence from design proponents is, you will just fall back to "We don't yet know"
without ever addressing the facts they present.
On 5/19/26 9:25 AM, sticks wrote:
On 5/19/2026 7:00 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
Well, it's obvious; anything that Science can't explain (or can be
challenged about) shows God at His mightiest; slipping in the odd thing
here and there to baffle those pesky heathens.
Either you are not reading already answered questions, or you just
refuse to hear them.-a You are essentially making the claim these are
Gaps in scientific knowledge the theist fills with "Must be the
actions of God."-a The same tired old, we don't know so God must have
done it. That is not at all what the movie does.-a As I have said
before, they are not gaps, but closed doors.-a Evidence is shown that
explains why it is believed these things could not have happened
materialistically.-a I would like to hear someone actually address some
of the evidence and points made instead of just making silly and
uninformed Goddidit remarks.-a Are you capable of that?
On the origin of the universe and the origin of life, what you saw was, indeed, God of the Gaps claims. We don't know enough about those
subjects to be able to say that the door is closed to all options except God.-a (If we did, we would be able to say something about God, even if
it's something like, "God must be able to hold the descriptions of 142 oligoproteins in its memory at the same time.")
Fine tuning, depending on what the movie showed, is either God of the
Gaps or a straight-up scam. We don't know enough about the origin of the universe to know whether fine-tuning even exists, much less whether
there is a mechanism to explain it. (At least one mechanism has been hypothesized.) If the movie asked, "What are the odds that life could
exist in this universe?" and gave (or implied) an answer other than
absolute certainly, then they scammed you, because the full question is, "What are the odds that life could exist in this universe, given the
fact that the question is being asked by something that is alive in this universe?" The answer to that is obvious to anyone who understand probability.
What is also interesting is that you in effect do the same thing you
constantly accuse creationists of regarding gaps, in your case it's
called "Materialism of the Gaps." You feel you don't have to answer
questions because of your confidence these gaps for the materialist
will eventually be filled.-a Somehow it must have happened, because
here we are.-a No matter what the analysis and interpretation of
evidence from design proponents is, you will just fall back to "We
don't yet know" without ever addressing the facts they present.
Please explain what is wrong with saying, "we don't know" when, in fact,
we do not know.
This is not an idle question. The position you promote in that paragraph raises serious problems of ethics and theology.-a You have, in effect, claimed hubris as a virtue.
On 5/19/26 9:25 AM, sticks wrote:
On 5/19/2026 7:00 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
Well, it's obvious; anything that Science can't explain (or can be
challenged about) shows God at His mightiest; slipping in the odd thing
here and there to baffle those pesky heathens.
Either you are not reading already answered questions, or you just
refuse to hear them.-a You are essentially making the claim these are
Gaps in scientific knowledge the theist fills with "Must be the
actions of God."-a The same tired old, we don't know so God must have
done it. That is not at all what the movie does.-a As I have said
before, they are not gaps, but closed doors.-a Evidence is shown that
explains why it is believed these things could not have happened
materialistically.-a I would like to hear someone actually address some
of the evidence and points made instead of just making silly and
uninformed Goddidit remarks.-a Are you capable of that?
On the origin of the universe and the origin of life, what you saw was, indeed, God of the Gaps claims. We don't know enough about those
subjects to be able to say that the door is closed to all options except God.-a (If we did, we would be able to say something about God, even if
it's something like, "God must be able to hold the descriptions of 142 oligoproteins in its memory at the same time.")
Fine tuning, depending on what the movie showed, is either God of the
Gaps or a straight-up scam. We don't know enough about the origin of the universe to know whether fine-tuning even exists, much less whether
there is a mechanism to explain it. (At least one mechanism has been hypothesized.) If the movie asked, "What are the odds that life could
exist in this universe?" and gave (or implied) an answer other than
absolute certainly, then they scammed you, because the full question is, "What are the odds that life could exist in this universe, given the
fact that the question is being asked by something that is alive in this universe?" The answer to that is obvious to anyone who understand probability.
What is also interesting is that you in effect do the same thing you
constantly accuse creationists of regarding gaps, in your case it's
called "Materialism of the Gaps." You feel you don't have to answer
questions because of your confidence these gaps for the materialist
will eventually be filled.-a Somehow it must have happened, because
here we are.-a No matter what the analysis and interpretation of
evidence from design proponents is, you will just fall back to "We
don't yet know" without ever addressing the facts they present.
Please explain what is wrong with saying, "we don't know" when, in fact,
we do not know.
This is not an idle question. The position you promote in that paragraph raises serious problems of ethics and theology.-a You have, in effect, claimed hubris as a virtue.
On 5/19/2026 5:45 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 5/19/26 9:25 AM, sticks wrote:
On 5/19/2026 7:00 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
Well, it's obvious; anything that Science can't explain (or can be
challenged about) shows God at His mightiest; slipping in the odd thing >>> here and there to baffle those pesky heathens.
Either you are not reading already answered questions, or you just
refuse to hear them.-a You are essentially making the claim these are
Gaps in scientific knowledge the theist fills with "Must be the
actions of God."-a The same tired old, we don't know so God must have
done it. That is not at all what the movie does.-a As I have said
before, they are not gaps, but closed doors.-a Evidence is shown that
explains why it is believed these things could not have happened
materialistically.-a I would like to hear someone actually address some >> of the evidence and points made instead of just making silly and
uninformed Goddidit remarks.-a Are you capable of that?
On the origin of the universe and the origin of life, what you saw was, indeed, God of the Gaps claims. We don't know enough about those
subjects to be able to say that the door is closed to all options except God.-a (If we did, we would be able to say something about God, even if it's something like, "God must be able to hold the descriptions of 142 oligoproteins in its memory at the same time.")
No. It's a gap for you, not me. I have all the information needed to
make the determination it could not have happened naturally. In your
view, quarks, leptons, and bosons have somehow always existed. The Principle of Sufficient Reason makes more sense to me and requires an explanation of the origin of the above. It all boils down to you giving supernatural powers to something material, like being eternal, whereas I
say this is impossible. So while you are free to continue trying to
fill your gap, I have decided the avenue you pursue is never going to
yield anything better for you, because it is impossible.
The question then is why I am able to accept your belief as a reasonable one, you are not willing to do the same for mine. The answer to that is
now philosophical, not scientific.
Fine tuning, depending on what the movie showed, is either God of the
Gaps or a straight-up scam. We don't know enough about the origin of the universe to know whether fine-tuning even exists, much less whether
there is a mechanism to explain it. (At least one mechanism has been hypothesized.) If the movie asked, "What are the odds that life could exist in this universe?" and gave (or implied) an answer other than absolute certainly, then they scammed you, because the full question is, "What are the odds that life could exist in this universe, given the
fact that the question is being asked by something that is alive in this universe?" The answer to that is obvious to anyone who understand probability.
Circular reasoning at its finest. We know enough to be able to make a personal decision as to whether or not this happened naturally or was
designed. We can disagree. Again, I don't care if you disagree with
me. But to say my opinion is based on a scam is ridiculous. Many a scientist has had to concede to the improbability of the numbers and
concede design. S&C had a fact filled post on this yesterday with one
of your favorite villains, Stephen Meyer.
<https://scienceandculture.com/2026/05/halper-and-meyer-on-inscrutable-dice-and-cosmological-fine-tuning/>
Meh.What is also interesting is that you in effect do the same thing you
constantly accuse creationists of regarding gaps, in your case it's
called "Materialism of the Gaps." You feel you don't have to answer
questions because of your confidence these gaps for the materialist
will eventually be filled.-a Somehow it must have happened, because
here we are.-a No matter what the analysis and interpretation of
evidence from design proponents is, you will just fall back to "We
don't yet know" without ever addressing the facts they present.
Please explain what is wrong with saying, "we don't know" when, in fact, we do not know.
Not a damn thing. Of course, the paragraph above you are referring to
does not in fact make the suggestion you claim. The point of the
paragraph is that anything presented by an ID proponent is quickly
dismissed without addressing the claims, just as you've done in this
entire post. YOU, don't know because of philosophical reasons. The interpretations made by ID people are based on the scientific evidence.
Yes, the individual then has to decide what that means, and the
direction of inquiry changes into theological areas at times. But it doesn't start there. But it does with you. Anything that cannot be explained materialistically is a non-starter for you. They're gaps for
you, not for me. And, I'm perfectly fine with that.
This is not an idle question. The position you promote in that paragraph raises serious problems of ethics and theology.-a You have, in effect, claimed hubris as a virtue.
I'll be honest, I don't really understand where you are going with this,
so I won't answer it unless you clarify a bit.
--
Science DoesnrCOt Support Darwin. Scientists Do
Supernaturalism is just the
opposite, and it seems to be a repository for weak minds who can't
figure nature out given the rules of the game.
On 5/19/2026 5:45 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 5/19/26 9:25 AM, sticks wrote:
On 5/19/2026 7:00 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
Well, it's obvious; anything that Science can't explain (or can be
challenged about) shows God at His mightiest; slipping in the odd thing >>>> here and there to baffle those pesky heathens.
Either you are not reading already answered questions, or you just
refuse to hear them.-a You are essentially making the claim these are
Gaps in scientific knowledge the theist fills with "Must be the
actions of God."-a The same tired old, we don't know so God must have
done it. That is not at all what the movie does.-a As I have said
before, they are not gaps, but closed doors.-a Evidence is shown that
explains why it is believed these things could not have happened
materialistically.-a I would like to hear someone actually address
some of the evidence and points made instead of just making silly and
uninformed Goddidit remarks.-a Are you capable of that?
On the origin of the universe and the origin of life, what you saw
was, indeed, God of the Gaps claims. We don't know enough about those
subjects to be able to say that the door is closed to all options
except God.-a (If we did, we would be able to say something about God,
even if it's something like, "God must be able to hold the
descriptions of 142 oligoproteins in its memory at the same time.")
No.-a It's a gap for you, not me.-a I have all the information needed to make the determination it could not have happened naturally.-a In your
view, quarks, leptons, and bosons have somehow always existed.-a The Principle of Sufficient Reason makes more sense to me and requires an explanation of the origin of the above.-a It all boils down to you giving supernatural powers to something material, like being eternal, whereas I
say this is impossible.-a So while you are free to continue trying to
fill your gap, I have decided the avenue you pursue is never going to
yield anything better for you, because it is impossible.
The question then is why I am able to accept your belief as a reasonable one, you are not willing to do the same for mine.-a The answer to that is now philosophical, not scientific.
Fine tuning, depending on what the movie showed, is either God of the
Gaps or a straight-up scam. We don't know enough about the origin of
the universe to know whether fine-tuning even exists, much less
whether there is a mechanism to explain it. (At least one mechanism
has been hypothesized.) If the movie asked, "What are the odds that
life could exist in this universe?" and gave (or implied) an answer
other than absolute certainly, then they scammed you, because the full
question is, "What are the odds that life could exist in this
universe, given the fact that the question is being asked by something
that is alive in this universe?" The answer to that is obvious to
anyone who understand probability.
Circular reasoning at its finest.-a We know enough to be able to make a personal decision as to whether or not this happened naturally or was designed.-a We can disagree.-a Again, I don't care if you disagree with me.-a But to say my opinion is based on a scam is ridiculous.-a Many a scientist has had to concede to the improbability of the numbers and
concede design.-a S&C had a fact filled post on this yesterday with one
of your favorite villains, Stephen Meyer.
<https://scienceandculture.com/2026/05/halper-and-meyer-on-inscrutable- dice-and-cosmological-fine-tuning/>
What is also interesting is that you in effect do the same thing you
constantly accuse creationists of regarding gaps, in your case it's
called "Materialism of the Gaps." You feel you don't have to answer
questions because of your confidence these gaps for the materialist
will eventually be filled.-a Somehow it must have happened, because
here we are.-a No matter what the analysis and interpretation of
evidence from design proponents is, you will just fall back to "We
don't yet know" without ever addressing the facts they present.
Please explain what is wrong with saying, "we don't know" when, in
fact, we do not know.
Not a damn thing.-a Of course, the paragraph above you are referring to
does not in fact make the suggestion you claim.-a The point of the
paragraph is that anything presented by an ID proponent is quickly
dismissed without addressing the claims, just as you've done in this
entire post.-a YOU, don't know because of philosophical reasons.-a The interpretations made by ID people are based on the scientific evidence.
Yes, the individual then has to decide what that means, and the
direction of inquiry changes into theological areas at times.-a But it doesn't start there.-a But it does with you.-a Anything that cannot be explained materialistically is a non-starter for you.-a They're gaps for you, not for me. And, I'm perfectly fine with that.
You feel you don't have to answer questions because of your
confidence these gaps for the materialist will eventually be filled.
This is not an idle question. The position you promote in that
paragraph raises serious problems of ethics and theology.-a You have,
in effect, claimed hubris as a virtue.
I'll be honest, I don't really understand where you are going with this,
so I won't answer it unless you clarify a bit.
On Tue, 19 May 2026 10:09:23 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
[a]
Supernaturalism is just the
opposite, and it seems to be a repository for weak minds who can't
figure nature out given the rules of the game.
From 1901 to 2000, just over 86% of Nobel Prize winners expressed
belief in the Judeo-Christian God with only 10.5% being atheists,
agnostics, and freethinkers. The figures are particularly striking in
science with religious believers accounting for 87% in Chemistry, 80%
in Physics and 86% in Medicine. The only discipline where atheists, >agnostics, and freethinkers have had significant impact is Literature
where they account for 35%.
It seems like those "weak minds" are actually better than atheists at
iguring nature out given the rules of the game .
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Religion_of_Nobel_Prize_winners_between_1901_and_2000.png
(Apparently based on Shalev, B. A. (2002). 100 years of Nobel prizes.
The Americas Group)
On Tue, 19 May 2026 10:09:23 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
[rCa]
Supernaturalism is just the
opposite, and it seems to be a repository for weak minds who can't
figure nature out given the rules of the game.
From 1901 to 2000, just over 86% of Nobel Prize winners expressed
belief in the Judeo-Christian God with only 10.5% being atheists,
agnostics, and freethinkers. The figures are particularly striking in
science with religious believers accounting for 87% in Chemistry, 80%
in Physics and 86% in Medicine. The only discipline where atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers have had significant impact is Literature
where they account for 35%.
It seems like those "weak minds" are actually better than atheists at
iguring nature out given the rules of the game .
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Religion_of_Nobel_Prize_winners_between_1901_and_2000.png
(Apparently based on Shalev, B. A. (2002). 100 years of Nobel prizes.
The Americas Group)
On Wed, 20 May 2026 19:25:02 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 May 2026 10:09:23 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
[rCa]
Supernaturalism is just the
opposite, and it seems to be a repository for weak minds who can't
figure nature out given the rules of the game.
From 1901 to 2000, just over 86% of Nobel Prize winners expressed
belief in the Judeo-Christian God with only 10.5% being atheists, >>agnostics, and freethinkers. The figures are particularly striking in >>science with religious believers accounting for 87% in Chemistry, 80%
in Physics and 86% in Medicine. The only discipline where atheists, >>agnostics, and freethinkers have had significant impact is Literature
where they account for 35%.
That's probably a restriction of range effect. At the highest levels
of achievement, factors other than intelligence become more important
in predicting success. That, of course, fits with the fact that a
higher proportion of scientists in general are atheists when compared
to non-scientists.
It seems like those "weak minds" are actually better than atheists at >>iguring nature out given the rules of the game .
All right. What scientific phenomena did you have an interest in
attributing to supernatural causes?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Religion_of_Nobel_Prize_winners_between_1901_and_2000.png
(Apparently based on Shalev, B. A. (2002). 100 years of Nobel prizes.
The Americas Group)
On 5/20/26 11:25 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 19 May 2026 10:09:23 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
[rCa]
Supernaturalism is just the
opposite, and it seems to be a repository for weak minds who can't
figure nature out given the rules of the game.
From 1901 to 2000, just over 86% of Nobel Prize winners expressed
belief in the Judeo-Christian God with only 10.5% being atheists,
agnostics, and freethinkers. The figures are particularly striking in
science with religious believers accounting for 87% in Chemistry, 80%
in Physics and 86% in Medicine. The only discipline where atheists,
agnostics, and freethinkers have had significant impact is Literature
where they account for 35%.
It seems like those "weak minds" are actually better than atheists at
iguring nature out given the rules of the game .
Poor use of statistics.
But it would help if you could show that these
figures were significantly different (in your favored direction) from
the percentages for those fields as a whole.
Incidentally, were there no theists who weren't Christian or Jewish?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Religion_of_Nobel_Prize_winners_between_1901_and_2000.png
(Apparently based on Shalev, B. A. (2002). 100 years of Nobel prizes.
The Americas Group)
On Wed, 20 May 2026 19:03:27 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/20/26 11:25 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 19 May 2026 10:09:23 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
[rCa]
Supernaturalism is just the
opposite, and it seems to be a repository for weak minds who can't
figure nature out given the rules of the game.
From 1901 to 2000, just over 86% of Nobel Prize winners expressed
belief in the Judeo-Christian God with only 10.5% being atheists,
agnostics, and freethinkers. The figures are particularly striking in
science with religious believers accounting for 87% in Chemistry, 80%
in Physics and 86% in Medicine. The only discipline where atheists,
agnostics, and freethinkers have had significant impact is Literature
where they account for 35%.
It seems like those "weak minds" are actually better than atheists at
iguring nature out given the rules of the game .
Poor use of statistics.
In what way?
But it would help if you could show that these
figures were significantly different (in your favored direction) from
the percentages for those fields as a whole.
What do you mean by "those fields as a whole"?
Incidentally, were there no theists who weren't Christian or Jewish?
I don't know, maybe you should contact Shalev, the author.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Religion_of_Nobel_Prize_winners_between_1901_and_2000.png
(Apparently based on Shalev, B. A. (2002). 100 years of Nobel prizes.
The Americas Group)
On 21/05/2026 10:05, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2026 19:03:27 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/20/26 11:25 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 19 May 2026 10:09:23 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
[rCa]
Supernaturalism is just the
opposite, and it seems to be a repository for weak minds who can't
figure nature out given the rules of the game.
-a From 1901 to 2000, just over 86% of Nobel Prize winners expressed
belief-a in the Judeo-Christian God with only 10.5% being atheists,
agnostics, and freethinkers. The figures are particularly striking in
science with religious believers accounting for 87% in Chemistry, 80%
in Physics and 86% in Medicine. The only discipline where atheists,
agnostics, and freethinkers have had significant impact is Literature
where they account for 35%.
It seems like those "weak minds" are actually better than atheists at
iguring nature out given the rules of the game .
Poor use of statistics.
In what way?
But it would help if you could show that these
figures were significantly different (in your favored direction) from
the percentages for those fields as a whole.
What do you mean by "those fields as a whole"?
Incidentally, were there no theists who weren't Christian or Jewish?
I don't know, maybe you should contact Shalev, the author.
If the link to the WikiMedia file is followed a mention will be found of
a few (fewer than I would have expected, possibly due to the 2000 cutoff date) Moslem, Buddhist and Hindu recipients. (Why Judeo-Christian above, rather than Abrahamist?)
The file links to the study, which mentions 1 Neo-Pagan and 1 Shintoist laureate.
The study doesn't cite any sources.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/
File:Religion_of_Nobel_Prize_winners_between_1901_and_2000.png
(Apparently based on Shalev, B. A. (2002). 100 years of Nobel prizes.
The Americas Group)
On 21/05/2026 10:05, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2026 19:03:27 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/20/26 11:25 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 19 May 2026 10:09:23 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
[rCa]
Supernaturalism is just the
opposite, and it seems to be a repository for weak minds who can't
figure nature out given the rules of the game.
From 1901 to 2000, just over 86% of Nobel Prize winners expressed
belief in the Judeo-Christian God with only 10.5% being atheists,
agnostics, and freethinkers. The figures are particularly striking in
science with religious believers accounting for 87% in Chemistry, 80%
in Physics and 86% in Medicine. The only discipline where atheists,
agnostics, and freethinkers have had significant impact is Literature
where they account for 35%.
It seems like those "weak minds" are actually better than atheists at
iguring nature out given the rules of the game .
Poor use of statistics.
In what way?
But it would help if you could show that these
figures were significantly different (in your favored direction) from
the percentages for those fields as a whole.
What do you mean by "those fields as a whole"?
Incidentally, were there no theists who weren't Christian or Jewish?
I don't know, maybe you should contact Shalev, the author.
If the link to the WikiMedia file is followed a mention will be found of
a few (fewer than I would have expected, possibly due to the 2000 cutoff >date) Moslem, Buddhist and Hindu recipients. (Why Judeo-Christian above, >rather than Abrahamist?)
The file links to the study, which mentions 1 Neo-Pagan and 1 Shintoist >laureate.
The study doesn't cite any sources.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Religion_of_Nobel_Prize_winners_between_1901_and_2000.png
(Apparently based on Shalev, B. A. (2002). 100 years of Nobel prizes.
The Americas Group)
On 21/05/2026 11:43, Ernest Major wrote:
On 21/05/2026 10:05, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2026 19:03:27 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/20/26 11:25 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 19 May 2026 10:09:23 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
[rCa]
Supernaturalism is just the
opposite, and it seems to be a repository for weak minds who can't >>>>>> figure nature out given the rules of the game.
-a From 1901 to 2000, just over 86% of Nobel Prize winners expressed >>>>> belief-a in the Judeo-Christian God with only 10.5% being atheists,
agnostics, and freethinkers. The figures are particularly striking in >>>>> science with religious believers accounting for 87% in Chemistry, 80% >>>>> in Physics and 86% in Medicine. The only discipline where atheists,
agnostics, and freethinkers have had significant impact is Literature >>>>> where they account for 35%.
It seems like those "weak minds" are actually better than atheists at >>>>> iguring nature out given the rules of the game .
Poor use of statistics.
In what way?
But it would help if you could show that these
figures were significantly different (in your favored direction) from
the percentages for those fields as a whole.
What do you mean by "those fields as a whole"?
Incidentally, were there no theists who weren't Christian or Jewish?
I don't know, maybe you should contact Shalev, the author.
If the link to the WikiMedia file is followed a mention will be found of
a few (fewer than I would have expected, possibly due to the 2000 cutoff
date) Moslem, Buddhist and Hindu recipients. (Why Judeo-Christian above,
rather than Abrahamist?)
The file links to the study, which mentions 1 Neo-Pagan and 1 Shintoist
laureate.
The study doesn't cite any sources.
I suspect that the study has systematically included secular Jews as
Jews, rather than atheists. For example Sheldon Glashow, who WikiPedia >reports as describing himself as a "practising atheist".
Whether any
"cultural Christians" have been accounted Christian is not so easy to check. >>>
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/
File:Religion_of_Nobel_Prize_winners_between_1901_and_2000.png
(Apparently based on Shalev, B. A. (2002). 100 years of Nobel prizes. >>>>> The Americas Group)
On Thu, 21 May 2026 11:43:14 +0100, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 21/05/2026 10:05, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2026 19:03:27 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/20/26 11:25 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 19 May 2026 10:09:23 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
[rCa]
Supernaturalism is just the
opposite, and it seems to be a repository for weak minds who can't >>>>>> figure nature out given the rules of the game.
From 1901 to 2000, just over 86% of Nobel Prize winners expressed >>>>> belief in the Judeo-Christian God with only 10.5% being atheists,
agnostics, and freethinkers. The figures are particularly striking in >>>>> science with religious believers accounting for 87% in Chemistry, 80% >>>>> in Physics and 86% in Medicine. The only discipline where atheists,
agnostics, and freethinkers have had significant impact is Literature >>>>> where they account for 35%.
It seems like those "weak minds" are actually better than atheists at >>>>> iguring nature out given the rules of the game .
Poor use of statistics.
In what way?
But it would help if you could show that these
figures were significantly different (in your favored direction) from
the percentages for those fields as a whole.
What do you mean by "those fields as a whole"?
Incidentally, were there no theists who weren't Christian or Jewish?
I don't know, maybe you should contact Shalev, the author.
If the link to the WikiMedia file is followed a mention will be found of
a few (fewer than I would have expected, possibly due to the 2000 cutoff
date) Moslem, Buddhist and Hindu recipients. (Why Judeo-Christian above,
rather than Abrahamist?)
At 0.6%, the figure for Moslems isn't really of any great significance Compared to Jews and Christians. I would guess that is due to the fact
that for a whole lot of reasons, modern scientific development has overwhelmingly taken place in the Western world. Do you think that has started to change since 2000?
The file links to the study, which mentions 1 Neo-Pagan and 1 Shintoist
laureate.
The study doesn't cite any sources.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Religion_of_Nobel_Prize_winners_between_1901_and_2000.png
(Apparently based on Shalev, B. A. (2002). 100 years of Nobel prizes. >>>>> The Americas Group)
This article written
in 1979 when he won it describes him then as a member of Temple Israel
in Boston where three of his four children attend the Hebrew school."
On 21/05/2026 12:17, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2026 11:43:14 +0100, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 21/05/2026 10:05, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2026 19:03:27 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/20/26 11:25 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 19 May 2026 10:09:23 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
[rCa]
Supernaturalism is just the
opposite, and it seems to be a repository for weak minds who can't >>>>>>> figure nature out given the rules of the game.
From 1901 to 2000, just over 86% of Nobel Prize winners expressed >>>>>> belief in the Judeo-Christian God with only 10.5% being atheists, >>>>>> agnostics, and freethinkers. The figures are particularly striking in >>>>>> science with religious believers accounting for 87% in Chemistry, 80% >>>>>> in Physics and 86% in Medicine. The only discipline where atheists, >>>>>> agnostics, and freethinkers have had significant impact is Literature >>>>>> where they account for 35%.
It seems like those "weak minds" are actually better than atheists at >>>>>> iguring nature out given the rules of the game .
Poor use of statistics.
In what way?
But it would help if you could show that these
figures were significantly different (in your favored direction) from >>>>> the percentages for those fields as a whole.
What do you mean by "those fields as a whole"?
Incidentally, were there no theists who weren't Christian or Jewish?
I don't know, maybe you should contact Shalev, the author.
If the link to the WikiMedia file is followed a mention will be found of >>> a few (fewer than I would have expected, possibly due to the 2000 cutoff >>> date) Moslem, Buddhist and Hindu recipients. (Why Judeo-Christian above, >>> rather than Abrahamist?)
At 0.6%, the figure for Moslems isn't really of any great significance
Compared to Jews and Christians. I would guess that is due to the fact
that for a whole lot of reasons, modern scientific development has
overwhelmingly taken place in the Western world. Do you think that has
started to change since 2000?
Yes. There's a lot of research coming out East Asia, especially China, >nowadays.
https://opportunities-insight.britishcouncil.org/short-articles/news/more-chinese-institutions-rank-high-globally
The file links to the study, which mentions 1 Neo-Pagan and 1 Shintoist
laureate.
The study doesn't cite any sources.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Religion_of_Nobel_Prize_winners_between_1901_and_2000.png
(Apparently based on Shalev, B. A. (2002). 100 years of Nobel prizes. >>>>>> The Americas Group)
On Wed, 20 May 2026 18:08:46 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2026 19:25:02 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 May 2026 10:09:23 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
[a]
Supernaturalism is just the
opposite, and it seems to be a repository for weak minds who can't >>>>figure nature out given the rules of the game.
From 1901 to 2000, just over 86% of Nobel Prize winners expressed
belief in the Judeo-Christian God with only 10.5% being atheists, >>>agnostics, and freethinkers. The figures are particularly striking in >>>science with religious believers accounting for 87% in Chemistry, 80%
in Physics and 86% in Medicine. The only discipline where atheists, >>>agnostics, and freethinkers have had significant impact is Literature >>>where they account for 35%.
That's probably a restriction of range effect. At the highest levels
of achievement, factors other than intelligence become more important
in predicting success. That, of course, fits with the fact that a
higher proportion of scientists in general are atheists when compared
to non-scientists.
I assume you are basing that on the 2009 PEW survey as you did the
last time we discussed this. The details of that survey don't seem to
be available in the PEW archives but it was carried out on members of >American Association for the Advancement of Science and AFAIR, the
group studied were primarily those involved in management/bureaucratic
roles, not cutting-edge research.
Generally, those tend to be
encourage "going with the flow" rather than challenging the status quo
or coming up with new ideas; they would therefore seem a more likely >attraction for those with 'weak minds'.
As pointed out before, you also ignore the fact that higher positions >generally mean more affluence and there is a well-recognised
correlation between increased affluence and decline in religious
belief which would need to be taken into account before drawing any
other conclusions about correlation.
It seems like those "weak minds" are actually better than atheists at >>>iguring nature out given the rules of the game .
All right. What scientific phenomena did you have an interest in >>attributing to supernatural causes?
None - if something is explicable as a *scientific* phenomena than by >definition, no supernatural cause is required.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Religion_of_Nobel_Prize_winners_between_1901_and_2000.png
(Apparently based on Shalev, B. A. (2002). 100 years of Nobel prizes.
The Americas Group)
On 5/20/26 7:04 AM, sticks wrote:
On 5/19/2026 5:45 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 5/19/26 9:25 AM, sticks wrote:
On 5/19/2026 7:00 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
Well, it's obvious; anything that Science can't explain (or can be
challenged about) shows God at His mightiest; slipping in the odd
thing
here and there to baffle those pesky heathens.
Either you are not reading already answered questions, or you just
refuse to hear them.-a You are essentially making the claim these are >>>> Gaps in scientific knowledge the theist fills with "Must be the
actions of God."-a The same tired old, we don't know so God must have >>>> done it. That is not at all what the movie does.-a As I have said
before, they are not gaps, but closed doors.-a Evidence is shown that >>>> explains why it is believed these things could not have happened
materialistically.-a I would like to hear someone actually address
some of the evidence and points made instead of just making silly
and uninformed Goddidit remarks.-a Are you capable of that?
On the origin of the universe and the origin of life, what you saw
was, indeed, God of the Gaps claims. We don't know enough about those
subjects to be able to say that the door is closed to all options
except God.-a (If we did, we would be able to say something about God,
even if it's something like, "God must be able to hold the
descriptions of 142 oligoproteins in its memory at the same time.")
No.-a It's a gap for you, not me.-a I have all the information needed to
make the determination it could not have happened naturally.-a In your
view, quarks, leptons, and bosons have somehow always existed.-a The
Principle of Sufficient Reason makes more sense to me and requires an
explanation of the origin of the above.-a It all boils down to you
giving supernatural powers to something material, like being eternal,
whereas I say this is impossible.-a So while you are free to continue
trying to fill your gap, I have decided the avenue you pursue is never
going to yield anything better for you, because it is impossible.
The question then is why I am able to accept your belief as a
reasonable one, you are not willing to do the same for mine.-a The
answer to that is now philosophical, not scientific.
Fine tuning, depending on what the movie showed, is either God of the
Gaps or a straight-up scam. We don't know enough about the origin of
the universe to know whether fine-tuning even exists, much less
whether there is a mechanism to explain it. (At least one mechanism
has been hypothesized.) If the movie asked, "What are the odds that
life could exist in this universe?" and gave (or implied) an answer
other than absolute certainly, then they scammed you, because the
full question is, "What are the odds that life could exist in this
universe, given the fact that the question is being asked by
something that is alive in this universe?" The answer to that is
obvious to anyone who understand probability.
Circular reasoning at its finest.-a We know enough to be able to make a
personal decision as to whether or not this happened naturally or was
designed.-a We can disagree.-a Again, I don't care if you disagree with
me.-a But to say my opinion is based on a scam is ridiculous.-a Many a
scientist has had to concede to the improbability of the numbers and
concede design.-a S&C had a fact filled post on this yesterday with one
of your favorite villains, Stephen Meyer.
<https://scienceandculture.com/2026/05/halper-and-meyer-on-
inscrutable- dice-and-cosmological-fine-tuning/>
What is also interesting is that you in effect do the same thing you
constantly accuse creationists of regarding gaps, in your case it's
called "Materialism of the Gaps." You feel you don't have to answer
questions because of your confidence these gaps for the materialist
will eventually be filled.-a Somehow it must have happened, because
here we are.-a No matter what the analysis and interpretation of
evidence from design proponents is, you will just fall back to "We
don't yet know" without ever addressing the facts they present.
Please explain what is wrong with saying, "we don't know" when, in
fact, we do not know.
Not a damn thing.-a Of course, the paragraph above you are referring to
does not in fact make the suggestion you claim.-a The point of the
paragraph is that anything presented by an ID proponent is quickly
dismissed without addressing the claims, just as you've done in this
entire post.-a YOU, don't know because of philosophical reasons.-a The
interpretations made by ID people are based on the scientific
evidence. Yes, the individual then has to decide what that means, and
the direction of inquiry changes into theological areas at times.-a But
it doesn't start there.-a But it does with you.-a Anything that cannot
be explained materialistically is a non-starter for you.-a They're gaps
for you, not for me. And, I'm perfectly fine with that.
Your statement, "You, don't know because of philosophical reasons" is absurd.-a If I don't know how to prove Fermat's Last Theorem, if I don't know the 2025 GDP of New Zealand to the nearest dollar, if I don't know
the average air speed of _Hirundo rustica_, it's because I DON'T KNOW. Period.
I get the impression that you follow the postmodernist philosophy that everything is a matter of opinion, so that when I answer "I don't know," that is no more than me expressing my feelings,
and if I simply felt
like it, I could and would tell you that the 2025 GDP of New Zealand is $145,987,034,227, in New Zealand dollars.-a The world doesn't work like that. New Zealand's GDP is determined by New Zealand's economy, not my
views or feelings about it.-a The 12-digit number I just gave is nothing more than arbitrary pecking on a keyboard; I would be a humbug to claim
any accuracy for it, and you would be a fool to accept any.
The same is true about the origin of life and the origin of the
universe. I do not have the necessary data with which to answer those questions. No one does. So my answer is "I don't know." I could make up
a different answer, but I would be a humbug to do so, and you would be a fool to believe me if I did.
Earlier you wrote,
You feel you don't have to answer questions because of your
confidence these gaps for the materialist will eventually be filled.
That statement is false, at least triply so. First, I have answered the questions. I have answered them repeatedly. Even if you don't like "I
don't know" as an answer, you lie when you say it is not an answer.
Second, materialism is irrelevant, as a little thought should make
obvious. There are plenty of theists, with no commitment to materialism,
who don't know the answers to those questions either.
Third, I do not
have confidence that those gaps will eventually be filled.-a The
development of a *plausible* materialist explanation for the origin of
life appears likely to me, but I doubt we can ever know what was the
actual origin.
And I think it is distinctly possible that Christian
Nationalists might cause the fall of civilization, leading to the
extinction of humanity, before physicists figure out cosmological origins.
This is not an idle question. The position you promote in that
paragraph raises serious problems of ethics and theology.-a You have,
in effect, claimed hubris as a virtue.
I'll be honest, I don't really understand where you are going with
this, so I won't answer it unless you clarify a bit.
Perhaps my comments above clarified somewhat. I'll add that it is hubris
to reject that "I don't know" is often the best possible answer.
Re
theology, you seem to think that a materialistic explanation rules out
God; that's heresy.
On Tue, 19 May 2026 10:09:23 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
[rCa]
Supernaturalism is just the
opposite, and it seems to be a repository for weak minds who can't
figure nature out given the rules of the game.
From 1901 to 2000, just over 86% of Nobel Prize winners expressed
belief in the Judeo-Christian God with only 10.5% being atheists,
agnostics, and freethinkers. The figures are particularly striking in
science with religious believers accounting for 87% in Chemistry, 80%
in Physics and 86% in Medicine. The only discipline where atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers have had significant impact is Literature
where they account for 35%.
It seems like those "weak minds" are actually better than atheists at
iguring nature out given the rules of the game .
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Religion_of_Nobel_Prize_winners_between_1901_and_2000.png
(Apparently based on Shalev, B. A. (2002). 100 years of Nobel prizes.
The Americas Group)
On Wed, 20 May 2026 19:03:27 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/20/26 11:25 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 19 May 2026 10:09:23 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
[rCa]
Supernaturalism is just the
opposite, and it seems to be a repository for weak minds who can't
figure nature out given the rules of the game.
From 1901 to 2000, just over 86% of Nobel Prize winners expressed
belief in the Judeo-Christian God with only 10.5% being atheists,
agnostics, and freethinkers. The figures are particularly striking in
science with religious believers accounting for 87% in Chemistry, 80%
in Physics and 86% in Medicine. The only discipline where atheists,
agnostics, and freethinkers have had significant impact is Literature
where they account for 35%.
It seems like those "weak minds" are actually better than atheists at
iguring nature out given the rules of the game .
Poor use of statistics.
In what way?
But it would help if you could show that these
figures were significantly different (in your favored direction) from
the percentages for those fields as a whole.
What do you mean by "those fields as a whole"?
Incidentally, were there no theists who weren't Christian or Jewish?
I don't know, maybe you should contact Shalev, the author.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Religion_of_Nobel_Prize_winners_between_1901_and_2000.png
(Apparently based on Shalev, B. A. (2002). 100 years of Nobel prizes.
The Americas Group)
On 5/20/2026 4:37 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 5/20/26 7:04 AM, sticks wrote:
On 5/19/2026 5:45 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 5/19/26 9:25 AM, sticks wrote:
On 5/19/2026 7:00 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
Well, it's obvious; anything that Science can't explain (or can be >>>>>> challenged about) shows God at His mightiest; slipping in the odd >>>>>> thing
here and there to baffle those pesky heathens.
Either you are not reading already answered questions, or you just
refuse to hear them.a You are essentially making the claim these are >>>>> Gaps in scientific knowledge the theist fills with "Must be the
actions of God."a The same tired old, we don't know so God must have >>>>> done it. That is not at all what the movie does.a As I have said
before, they are not gaps, but closed doors.a Evidence is shown that >>>>> explains why it is believed these things could not have happened
materialistically.a I would like to hear someone actually address
some of the evidence and points made instead of just making silly
and uninformed Goddidit remarks.a Are you capable of that?
On the origin of the universe and the origin of life, what you saw
was, indeed, God of the Gaps claims. We don't know enough about those >>>> subjects to be able to say that the door is closed to all options
except God.a (If we did, we would be able to say something about God, >>>> even if it's something like, "God must be able to hold the
descriptions of 142 oligoproteins in its memory at the same time.")
No.a It's a gap for you, not me.a I have all the information needed to
make the determination it could not have happened naturally.a In your
view, quarks, leptons, and bosons have somehow always existed.a The
Principle of Sufficient Reason makes more sense to me and requires an
explanation of the origin of the above.a It all boils down to you
giving supernatural powers to something material, like being eternal,
whereas I say this is impossible.a So while you are free to continue
trying to fill your gap, I have decided the avenue you pursue is never
going to yield anything better for you, because it is impossible.
The question then is why I am able to accept your belief as a
reasonable one, you are not willing to do the same for mine.a The
answer to that is now philosophical, not scientific.
Fine tuning, depending on what the movie showed, is either God of the >>>> Gaps or a straight-up scam. We don't know enough about the origin of
the universe to know whether fine-tuning even exists, much less
whether there is a mechanism to explain it. (At least one mechanism
has been hypothesized.) If the movie asked, "What are the odds that
life could exist in this universe?" and gave (or implied) an answer
other than absolute certainly, then they scammed you, because the
full question is, "What are the odds that life could exist in this
universe, given the fact that the question is being asked by
something that is alive in this universe?" The answer to that is
obvious to anyone who understand probability.
Circular reasoning at its finest.a We know enough to be able to make a
personal decision as to whether or not this happened naturally or was
designed.a We can disagree.a Again, I don't care if you disagree with
me.a But to say my opinion is based on a scam is ridiculous.a Many a
scientist has had to concede to the improbability of the numbers and
concede design.a S&C had a fact filled post on this yesterday with one
of your favorite villains, Stephen Meyer.
<https://scienceandculture.com/2026/05/halper-and-meyer-on-
inscrutable- dice-and-cosmological-fine-tuning/>
What is also interesting is that you in effect do the same thing you >>>>> constantly accuse creationists of regarding gaps, in your case it's >>>>> called "Materialism of the Gaps." You feel you don't have to answer >>>>> questions because of your confidence these gaps for the materialist >>>>> will eventually be filled.a Somehow it must have happened, because
here we are.a No matter what the analysis and interpretation of
evidence from design proponents is, you will just fall back to "We
don't yet know" without ever addressing the facts they present.
Please explain what is wrong with saying, "we don't know" when, in
fact, we do not know.
Not a damn thing.a Of course, the paragraph above you are referring to
does not in fact make the suggestion you claim.a The point of the
paragraph is that anything presented by an ID proponent is quickly
dismissed without addressing the claims, just as you've done in this
entire post.a YOU, don't know because of philosophical reasons.a The
interpretations made by ID people are based on the scientific
evidence. Yes, the individual then has to decide what that means, and
the direction of inquiry changes into theological areas at times.a But
it doesn't start there.a But it does with you.a Anything that cannot
be explained materialistically is a non-starter for you.a They're gaps
for you, not for me. And, I'm perfectly fine with that.
Your statement, "You, don't know because of philosophical reasons" is
absurd.a If I don't know how to prove Fermat's Last Theorem, if I don't
know the 2025 GDP of New Zealand to the nearest dollar, if I don't know
the average air speed of _Hirundo rustica_, it's because I DON'T KNOW.
Period.
Again, you've missed the point. The point I was making is that I am not >limited to answers from a materialistic point of view.
You don't know
as stated above means, for example, that you cannot make the decision
that quarks, leptons, and bosons could not be eternal and must have >originated somehow,
because of your starting position that everything
happened naturally.
That is a philosophical position, not a scientific
one.
You may not ever find the origin, but it will not include the
supernatural.
I'm fine with that thinking from others. Couldn't care
less. I'm sure you didn't answer the particle question because you
"don't know."
I don't have this limitation and can decide the opposite. That is also >philosophical.
I get the impression that you follow the postmodernist philosophy that
everything is a matter of opinion, so that when I answer "I don't know,"
that is no more than me expressing my feelings,
No. I believe you are saying exactly what you believe the answer to the >question is. That's not the point. The point is what I believe does
make an interpretation of known evidence and comes to a conclusion for
what I believe is a valid reason. You disagree with the conclusion and
have a differing opinion. Fine. FWIW, I find it ludicrous that someone
can think ANYTHING material can be eternal.
But, I don't berate anyone
for thinking that. It is an extremely difficult and complicated thing
to make a decision that something other than natural causes is involved
in anything.
and if I simply felt
like it, I could and would tell you that the 2025 GDP of New Zealand is
$145,987,034,227, in New Zealand dollars.a The world doesn't work like
that. New Zealand's GDP is determined by New Zealand's economy, not my
views or feelings about it.a The 12-digit number I just gave is nothing
more than arbitrary pecking on a keyboard; I would be a humbug to claim
any accuracy for it, and you would be a fool to accept any.
The same is true about the origin of life and the origin of the
universe. I do not have the necessary data with which to answer those
questions. No one does. So my answer is "I don't know." I could make up
a different answer, but I would be a humbug to do so, and you would be a
fool to believe me if I did.
The discussion so far is mainly about the origin of the universe. We
are now down to what they believe are the smallest particles there is.
Also, it is believed these particles just are, and there is no smaller
or additional process that brings them into existence.
But even if
there is, it only pushes back the problem, much like the multiverse
pushes back the origin of life problem to another place and time.
I
cannot give these particles the power of being eternal. That is MY
answer. You cannot make that choice because of your philosophy. I
accept that.
Earlier you wrote,
You feel you don't have to answer questions because of your
confidence these gaps for the materialist will eventually be filled.
That statement is false, at least triply so. First, I have answered the
questions. I have answered them repeatedly. Even if you don't like "I
don't know" as an answer, you lie when you say it is not an answer.
Completely out of context and had nothing to do with you. That quote
was to Mudd and you know it. It was referencing his silly and usual >Godditit remarks, instead of actually answering the points made by ID >proponents in things like the movie in question, or even Meyer's book.
To be precise I said, "No matter what the analysis and interpretation of >evidence from design proponents is, you will just fall back to "We don't
yet know" without ever addressing the facts they present." FWIW, I
should just let it go when I see these comments, but I get annoyed
because it is just not as simple as saying someone like me just says >Goddidit. People who do so show their bias and unwillingness to
acknowledge differing opinions. It's intellectual dishonesty and
stupidity for all to see.
Second, materialism is irrelevant, as a little thought should make
obvious. There are plenty of theists, with no commitment to materialism,
who don't know the answers to those questions either.
I don't know the answer either, but yes materialism is relevant. What I
do know is that quarks can't be eternal and I move forward searching for >answers from there. You do the same thing, just in an opposite
direction of search. You still hold on to the possibility that somehow >material things can be eternal in one way or another. I'm ok with that
and completely understand.
Third, I do not
have confidence that those gaps will eventually be filled.a The
development of a *plausible* materialist explanation for the origin of
life appears likely to me, but I doubt we can ever know what was the
actual origin.
Origin of life discussion is a bit different than origin of the
universe. I have already explained elsewhere why I feel this too was >impossible materialistically.
But, there is no reason to go there in
this thread. But, for the same reasons mentioned above I completely >understand your position and accept it. I just disagree.
And I think it is distinctly possible that Christian
Nationalists might cause the fall of civilization, leading to the
extinction of humanity, before physicists figure out cosmological origins.
I don't see the need to divert the discussion into something so
politically charged.
This is not an idle question. The position you promote in that
paragraph raises serious problems of ethics and theology.a You have,
in effect, claimed hubris as a virtue.
I'll be honest, I don't really understand where you are going with
this, so I won't answer it unless you clarify a bit.
Perhaps my comments above clarified somewhat. I'll add that it is hubris
to reject that "I don't know" is often the best possible answer.
I don't reject "I don't know" from others. Others reject the idea I can >make the conclusion I do. That's hubris.
Re
theology, you seem to think that a materialistic explanation rules out
God; that's heresy.
That's silly. My use of "materialism" is in regards to things that
reach that point where they become out of options moving forward. I >couldn't care less if someone believes in evolution or the eternal
nature of particles, and still believe in God. I just have a different >opinion after analysis.
[...]
The discussion so far is mainly about the origin of the universe.-a We
are now down to what they believe are the smallest particles there is.
Also, it is believed these particles just are, and there is no smaller
or additional process that brings them into existence.-a But even if
there is, it only pushes back the problem, much like the multiverse
pushes back the origin of life problem to another place and time.-a I
cannot give these particles the power of being eternal.-a That is MY answer.-a You cannot make that choice because of your philosophy.-a I
accept that.
On 5/21/26 8:16 AM, sticks wrote:
[...]
The discussion so far is mainly about the origin of the universe.-a We
are now down to what they believe are the smallest particles there is.
Also, it is believed these particles just are, and there is no smaller
or additional process that brings them into existence.-a But even if
there is, it only pushes back the problem, much like the multiverse
pushes back the origin of life problem to another place and time.-a I
cannot give these particles the power of being eternal.-a That is MY
answer.-a You cannot make that choice because of your philosophy.-a I
accept that.
I'm cutting out most of this because I can't make much sense of most of it.
No, I have no idea where God came from. It's possible God has always existed, but that doesn't solve the problem. I think the answer must
somehow violate our understanding of causality.
I have no idea how things being eternal entered into this discussion. I can't see any place for it.
Yes, I believe that things that happen, happen naturally. You say you
have evidence otherwise, but so far, you have barely hinted at it. If
you want anyone to take you seriously, you'll have to provide some
evidence.
History is not your friend here, since it tells us that
supernatural explanations have almost always turned into natural explanations, and the reverse has never happened.
But then, we may not be so far apart, if what you call God is close to
what I call nature.
On 5/24/2026 7:00 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 5/21/26 8:16 AM, sticks wrote:
[...]
The discussion so far is mainly about the origin of the universe.-a We
are now down to what they believe are the smallest particles there
is. Also, it is believed these particles just are, and there is no
smaller or additional process that brings them into existence.-a But
even if there is, it only pushes back the problem, much like the
multiverse pushes back the origin of life problem to another place
and time.-a I cannot give these particles the power of being eternal.
That is MY answer.-a You cannot make that choice because of your
philosophy.-a I accept that.
I'm cutting out most of this because I can't make much sense of most
of it.
Your feigned inability to understand noted.
No, I have no idea where God came from. It's possible God has always
existed, but that doesn't solve the problem. I think the answer must
somehow violate our understanding of causality.
I have no idea how things being eternal entered into this discussion.
I can't see any place for it.
Funny stuff, really.-a First you seem to want to get a new "Theory of Everything" cause you are unable to say things in the quantum realm too
must have a cause which would make them eternal, then you question why things being eternal are part of the discussion.
Yes, I believe that things that happen, happen naturally. You say you
have evidence otherwise, but so far, you have barely hinted at it. If
I have not.-a We both share the same evidence.-a It is the interpretation
of the evidence where we differ.-a I have given my interpretation several times.-a You've snipped some of it in this very thread.
you want anyone to take you seriously, you'll have to provide some
evidence.
Could give two shits if anyone here does or not.-a Especially here, to be honest.-a This group is not overflowing with fair minded people.-a Nor am
I here to convince anyone of anything.-a Could give two shits what you believe.
History is not your friend here, since it tells us that supernatural
explanations have almost always turned into natural explanations, and
the reverse has never happened.
Well of course.-a Pretty hard to prove the existence of something supernatural.
-a However, your statement is mostly a matter of opinion.-a I
would say the opposite is occurring.-a The more science discovers, the harder it is for things like natural selection and something from
nothing happening from holding on to consensus.
But then, we may not be so far apart, if what you call God is close to
what I call nature.
Oh yeah....Mother Nature...Life finds a way...and many other cute little sayings that give intelligence to something that has none.
On 5/25/26 2:35 PM, sticks wrote:
Funny stuff, really.-a First you seem to want to get a new "Theory of
Everything" cause you are unable to say things in the quantum realm
too must have a cause which would make them eternal, then you question
why things being eternal are part of the discussion.
And you claim my ability to understand is feigned?-a I doubt anybody
could parse that sentence. When I get to a part I can parse ("a cause
which would make them eternal"), it makes no sense for semantic reasons:
A cause does not make things eternal. Soap bubbles have a cause. Soap bubbles are not eternal. And many things in the quantum realm are far
more ephemeral than soap bubbles.
Yes, I believe that things that happen, happen naturally. You say you
have evidence otherwise, but so far, you have barely hinted at it. If
I have not.-a We both share the same evidence.-a It is the
interpretation of the evidence where we differ.-a I have given my
interpretation several times.-a You've snipped some of it in this very
thread.
Okay, I accept your point.-a You have said nothing except that you
believe in a supernatural creator, a belief which is based on mental
games you play with yourself upon learning about parts of the universe. (Though I suspect that the games others are playing, with you as a pawn,
are more salient.)
You have an annoying habit of jumping to conclusions about what I
believe. And you're always wrong.
On 5/21/26 2:05 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2026 19:03:27 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/20/26 11:25 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 19 May 2026 10:09:23 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
[rCa]
Supernaturalism is just the
opposite, and it seems to be a repository for weak minds who can't
figure nature out given the rules of the game.
From 1901 to 2000, just over 86% of Nobel Prize winners expressed
belief in the Judeo-Christian God with only 10.5% being atheists,
agnostics, and freethinkers. The figures are particularly striking in
science with religious believers accounting for 87% in Chemistry, 80%
in Physics and 86% in Medicine. The only discipline where atheists,
agnostics, and freethinkers have had significant impact is Literature
where they account for 35%.
It seems like those "weak minds" are actually better than atheists at
iguring nature out given the rules of the game .
Poor use of statistics.
In what way?
First off, small sample size.
More importantly, the percentages are not
compared to any null distribution. Are Nobel winners enriched in >Christian/Jewish theists compared to scientists as a whole or to the >population as a whole?
But it would help if you could show that these
figures were significantly different (in your favored direction) from
the percentages for those fields as a whole.
What do you mean by "those fields as a whole"?
I refer to the general populations of chemists, physicists, and medical >researchers.
Incidentally, were there no theists who weren't Christian or Jewish?
I don't know, maybe you should contact Shalev, the author.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Religion_of_Nobel_Prize_winners_between_1901_and_2000.png
(Apparently based on Shalev, B. A. (2002). 100 years of Nobel prizes.
The Americas Group)
On Thu, 21 May 2026 09:38:27 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/21/26 2:05 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2026 19:03:27 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/20/26 11:25 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 19 May 2026 10:09:23 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
[rCa]
Supernaturalism is just the
opposite, and it seems to be a repository for weak minds who can't >>>>>> figure nature out given the rules of the game.
From 1901 to 2000, just over 86% of Nobel Prize winners expressed >>>>> belief in the Judeo-Christian God with only 10.5% being atheists,
agnostics, and freethinkers. The figures are particularly striking in >>>>> science with religious believers accounting for 87% in Chemistry, 80% >>>>> in Physics and 86% in Medicine. The only discipline where atheists,
agnostics, and freethinkers have had significant impact is Literature >>>>> where they account for 35%.
It seems like those "weak minds" are actually better than atheists at >>>>> iguring nature out given the rules of the game .
Poor use of statistics.
In what way?
First off, small sample size.
654 Nobel prize laureates is a samll sample size?
More importantly, the percentages are not
compared to any null distribution. Are Nobel winners enriched in
Christian/Jewish theists compared to scientists as a whole or to the
population as a whole?
But it would help if you could show that these
figures were significantly different (in your favored direction) from
the percentages for those fields as a whole.
What do you mean by "those fields as a whole"?
I refer to the general populations of chemists, physicists, and medical
researchers.
It doesn't seem to occur to you that if the scientists are
representative of the general population, that negates Maycock's claim
that religion attracts weaker minds.
Incidentally, were there no theists who weren't Christian or Jewish?
I don't know, maybe you should contact Shalev, the author.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Religion_of_Nobel_Prize_winners_between_1901_and_2000.png
(Apparently based on Shalev, B. A. (2002). 100 years of Nobel prizes. >>>>> The Americas Group)
On Thu, 21 May 2026 06:49:08 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2026 10:01:32 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2026 18:08:46 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2026 19:25:02 +0100, Martin Harran >>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 May 2026 10:09:23 -0700, Vincent Maycock >>>>><maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
[a]
Supernaturalism is just the
opposite, and it seems to be a repository for weak minds who can't >>>>>>figure nature out given the rules of the game.
From 1901 to 2000, just over 86% of Nobel Prize winners expressed >>>>>belief in the Judeo-Christian God with only 10.5% being atheists, >>>>>agnostics, and freethinkers. The figures are particularly striking in >>>>>science with religious believers accounting for 87% in Chemistry, 80% >>>>>in Physics and 86% in Medicine. The only discipline where atheists, >>>>>agnostics, and freethinkers have had significant impact is Literature >>>>>where they account for 35%.
That's probably a restriction of range effect. At the highest levels >>>>of achievement, factors other than intelligence become more important >>>>in predicting success. That, of course, fits with the fact that a >>>>higher proportion of scientists in general are atheists when compared >>>>to non-scientists.
I assume you are basing that on the 2009 PEW survey as you did the
last time we discussed this. The details of that survey don't seem to
be available in the PEW archives but it was carried out on members of >>>American Association for the Advancement of Science and AFAIR, the
group studied were primarily those involved in management/bureaucratic >>>roles, not cutting-edge research.
Cite?
If I had a cite, I wouldn't have need to say AFAIR.
It was in a
commentary I read somewhere but it fits in with my general experience
in a 27-year management consultancy career that membership of a
professional body is generally taken up to aid career progression (in
some cases necessary as a licence to operate).
Generally, those tend to be
encourage "going with the flow" rather than challenging the status quo
or coming up with new ideas; they would therefore seem a more likely >>>attraction for those with 'weak minds'.
The details of the poll are here and are consistent with previous
similar findings.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
Thank you for that, I tried to find it but was unsuccessful.
Unfortunately, that report does not give any background on the people
in the sample. I would point out, however, that the survey was carried
out exclusively in the USA as apparently have the previous surveys
referred to. Religion, culture and politics have an interaction in the
USA that is more or less unique in the Western world so I would be
cautious about applying any conclusions from there to humankind in
general.
As pointed out before, you also ignore the fact that higher positions >>>generally mean more affluence and there is a well-recognised
correlation between increased affluence and decline in religious
belief which would need to be taken into account before drawing any
other conclusions about correlation.
These surveys didn't say anything about higher positions.
It seems like those "weak minds" are actually better than atheists at >>>>>iguring nature out given the rules of the game .
All right. What scientific phenomena did you have an interest in >>>>attributing to supernatural causes?
None - if something is explicable as a *scientific* phenomena than by >>>definition, no supernatural cause is required.
So when *is* a supernatural cause required, in your view?
When there is no natural cause. I'm not sure what you are struggling
with here.
(Apparently based on Shalev, B. A. (2002). 100 years of Nobel prizes. >>>>>The Americas Group)
On 6/6/26 3:58 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2026 09:38:27 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/21/26 2:05 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2026 19:03:27 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/20/26 11:25 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 19 May 2026 10:09:23 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
[rCa]
Supernaturalism is just the
opposite, and it seems to be a repository for weak minds who can't >>>>>>> figure nature out given the rules of the game.
From 1901 to 2000, just over 86% of Nobel Prize winners expressed >>>>>> belief in the Judeo-Christian God with only 10.5% being atheists, >>>>>> agnostics, and freethinkers. The figures are particularly striking in >>>>>> science with religious believers accounting for 87% in Chemistry, 80% >>>>>> in Physics and 86% in Medicine. The only discipline where atheists, >>>>>> agnostics, and freethinkers have had significant impact is Literature >>>>>> where they account for 35%.
It seems like those "weak minds" are actually better than atheists at >>>>>> iguring nature out given the rules of the game .
Poor use of statistics.
In what way?
First off, small sample size.
654 Nobel prize laureates is a samll sample size?
Yes. But it depends on what distribution you are claiming it to be a
sample from. This is a minor point.
More importantly, the percentages are not
compared to any null distribution. Are Nobel winners enriched in
Christian/Jewish theists compared to scientists as a whole or to the
population as a whole?
But it would help if you could show that these
figures were significantly different (in your favored direction) from >>>>> the percentages for those fields as a whole.
What do you mean by "those fields as a whole"?
I refer to the general populations of chemists, physicists, and medical
researchers.
It doesn't seem to occur to you that if the scientists are
representative of the general population, that negates Maycock's claim
that religion attracts weaker minds.
If. But this has not been determined. That's my point. If we assume that >Nobel prize winners are less likely to have weaker minds than the
general population (of scientists or of people in general?), and if
Nobel prize winner also do not have a lower percentage of religious >believers than the general population (whichever general population you >mean), then your argument is justified. But you have not presented any >information about the prevalence of religion in that population, so no >conclusion can be drawn.
Incidentally, were there no theists who weren't Christian or Jewish?
I don't know, maybe you should contact Shalev, the author.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Religion_of_Nobel_Prize_winners_between_1901_and_2000.png
(Apparently based on Shalev, B. A. (2002). 100 years of Nobel prizes. >>>>>> The Americas Group)
On Sat, 06 Jun 2026 12:11:45 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2026 06:49:08 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2026 10:01:32 +0100, Martin Harran >>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2026 18:08:46 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2026 19:25:02 +0100, Martin Harran >>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 May 2026 10:09:23 -0700, Vincent Maycock >>>>>><maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
[rCa]
Supernaturalism is just the
opposite, and it seems to be a repository for weak minds who can't >>>>>>>figure nature out given the rules of the game.
From 1901 to 2000, just over 86% of Nobel Prize winners expressed >>>>>>belief in the Judeo-Christian God with only 10.5% being atheists, >>>>>>agnostics, and freethinkers. The figures are particularly striking in >>>>>>science with religious believers accounting for 87% in Chemistry, 80% >>>>>>in Physics and 86% in Medicine. The only discipline where atheists, >>>>>>agnostics, and freethinkers have had significant impact is Literature >>>>>>where they account for 35%.
That's probably a restriction of range effect. At the highest levels >>>>>of achievement, factors other than intelligence become more important >>>>>in predicting success. That, of course, fits with the fact that a >>>>>higher proportion of scientists in general are atheists when compared >>>>>to non-scientists.
I assume you are basing that on the 2009 PEW survey as you did the
last time we discussed this. The details of that survey don't seem to >>>>be available in the PEW archives but it was carried out on members of >>>>American Association for the Advancement of Science and AFAIR, the >>>>group studied were primarily those involved in management/bureaucratic >>>>roles, not cutting-edge research.
Cite?
If I had a cite, I wouldn't have need to say AFAIR.
You could say that and then go looking for the material that was the
basis for your recollection.
It was in a
commentary I read somewhere but it fits in with my general experience
in a 27-year management consultancy career that membership of a >>professional body is generally taken up to aid career progression (in
some cases necessary as a licence to operate).
Well, at least you weren't saying *I* said that irreligiosity begets
social climbing.
That's more like testosterone or something that aids
social mobility in particular. If I've said anything about it, I
would mean "social status" to be "a heightened interest in things
people in general refer to in a positive way." That would include
interact with social climbing it (as well as with intelligence per
se), but would not be the same thing as them.
Generally, those tend to be
encourage "going with the flow" rather than challenging the status quo >>>>or coming up with new ideas; they would therefore seem a more likely >>>>attraction for those with 'weak minds'.
The details of the poll are here and are consistent with previous
similar findings.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
Thank you for that, I tried to find it but was unsuccessful.
Unfortunately, that report does not give any background on the people
in the sample. I would point out, however, that the survey was carried
out exclusively in the USA as apparently have the previous surveys
referred to. Religion, culture and politics have an interaction in the
USA that is more or less unique in the Western world so I would be
cautious about applying any conclusions from there to humankind in
general.
I thought Western Europe in general was less religious than the United >States.
As pointed out before, you also ignore the fact that higher positions >>>>generally mean more affluence and there is a well-recognised >>>>correlation between increased affluence and decline in religious
belief which would need to be taken into account before drawing any >>>>other conclusions about correlation.
These surveys didn't say anything about higher positions.
It seems like those "weak minds" are actually better than atheists at >>>>>>iguring nature out given the rules of the game .
All right. What scientific phenomena did you have an interest in >>>>>attributing to supernatural causes?
None - if something is explicable as a *scientific* phenomena than by >>>>definition, no supernatural cause is required.
So when *is* a supernatural cause required, in your view?
When there is no natural cause. I'm not sure what you are struggling
with here.
I'm not struggling with anything. In particular, how do you
distinguish "no natural cause" from "I don't know what the cause was"?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Religion_of_Nobel_Prize_winners_between_1901_and_2000.png
(Apparently based on Shalev, B. A. (2002). 100 years of Nobel prizes. >>>>>>The Americas Group)
On Sat, 6 Jun 2026 17:07:29 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/6/26 3:58 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2026 09:38:27 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/21/26 2:05 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2026 19:03:27 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/20/26 11:25 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 19 May 2026 10:09:23 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
[rCa]
Supernaturalism is just the
opposite, and it seems to be a repository for weak minds who can't >>>>>>>> figure nature out given the rules of the game.
From 1901 to 2000, just over 86% of Nobel Prize winners expressed >>>>>>> belief in the Judeo-Christian God with only 10.5% being atheists, >>>>>>> agnostics, and freethinkers. The figures are particularly striking in >>>>>>> science with religious believers accounting for 87% in Chemistry, 80% >>>>>>> in Physics and 86% in Medicine. The only discipline where atheists, >>>>>>> agnostics, and freethinkers have had significant impact is Literature >>>>>>> where they account for 35%.
It seems like those "weak minds" are actually better than atheists at >>>>>>> iguring nature out given the rules of the game .
Poor use of statistics.
In what way?
First off, small sample size.
654 Nobel prize laureates is a samll sample size?
Yes. But it depends on what distribution you are claiming it to be a
sample from. This is a minor point.
More importantly, the percentages are not
compared to any null distribution. Are Nobel winners enriched in
Christian/Jewish theists compared to scientists as a whole or to the
population as a whole?
But it would help if you could show that these
figures were significantly different (in your favored direction) from >>>>>> the percentages for those fields as a whole.
What do you mean by "those fields as a whole"?
I refer to the general populations of chemists, physicists, and medical >>>> researchers.
It doesn't seem to occur to you that if the scientists are
representative of the general population, that negates Maycock's claim
that religion attracts weaker minds.
If. But this has not been determined. That's my point. If we assume that
Nobel prize winners are less likely to have weaker minds than the
general population (of scientists or of people in general?), and if
Nobel prize winner also do not have a lower percentage of religious
believers than the general population (whichever general population you
mean), then your argument is justified. But you have not presented any
information about the prevalence of religion in that population, so no
conclusion can be drawn.
That comes across as a rather verbose way of conceding my point
without admitting you are conceding my point :)
Incidentally, were there no theists who weren't Christian or Jewish? >>>>>I don't know, maybe you should contact Shalev, the author.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Religion_of_Nobel_Prize_winners_between_1901_and_2000.png
(Apparently based on Shalev, B. A. (2002). 100 years of Nobel prizes. >>>>>>> The Americas Group)
On 6/9/26 7:02 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jun 2026 17:07:29 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/6/26 3:58 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2026 09:38:27 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/21/26 2:05 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2026 19:03:27 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/20/26 11:25 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 19 May 2026 10:09:23 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
[rCa]
Supernaturalism is just the
opposite, and it seems to be a repository for weak minds who can't >>>>>>>>> figure nature out given the rules of the game.
From 1901 to 2000, just over 86% of Nobel Prize winners expressed >>>>>>>> belief in the Judeo-Christian God with only 10.5% being atheists, >>>>>>>> agnostics, and freethinkers. The figures are particularly striking in >>>>>>>> science with religious believers accounting for 87% in Chemistry, 80% >>>>>>>> in Physics and 86% in Medicine. The only discipline where atheists, >>>>>>>> agnostics, and freethinkers have had significant impact is Literature >>>>>>>> where they account for 35%.
It seems like those "weak minds" are actually better than atheists at >>>>>>>> iguring nature out given the rules of the game .
Poor use of statistics.
In what way?
First off, small sample size.
654 Nobel prize laureates is a samll sample size?
Yes. But it depends on what distribution you are claiming it to be a
sample from. This is a minor point.
More importantly, the percentages are not
compared to any null distribution. Are Nobel winners enriched in
Christian/Jewish theists compared to scientists as a whole or to the >>>>> population as a whole?
But it would help if you could show that these
figures were significantly different (in your favored direction) from >>>>>>> the percentages for those fields as a whole.
What do you mean by "those fields as a whole"?
I refer to the general populations of chemists, physicists, and medical >>>>> researchers.
It doesn't seem to occur to you that if the scientists are
representative of the general population, that negates Maycock's claim >>>> that religion attracts weaker minds.
If. But this has not been determined. That's my point. If we assume that >>> Nobel prize winners are less likely to have weaker minds than the
general population (of scientists or of people in general?), and if
Nobel prize winner also do not have a lower percentage of religious
believers than the general population (whichever general population you
mean), then your argument is justified. But you have not presented any
information about the prevalence of religion in that population, so no
conclusion can be drawn.
That comes across as a rather verbose way of conceding my point
without admitting you are conceding my point :)
You appear not to understand the issue. And what "comes across" to you
has no resemblance to what I actually said.
Let me repeat: your statistics have nothing to say about Vince's claim.
They might do so if you presented additional data, comparing the numbers >with a different sample. If, for example, you showed that Nobel winners
were no less religious than the general population during the same time >period, that would help your case. But you have not done anything of the >sort. Your response is thus meaningless.
Did that help?
Let me add that I'm not attempting to support Vince's claim either.
rrIncidentally, were there no theists who weren't Christian or Jewish? >>>>>>I don't know, maybe you should contact Shalev, the author.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Religion_of_Nobel_Prize_winners_between_1901_and_2000.png
(Apparently based on Shalev, B. A. (2002). 100 years of Nobel prizes. >>>>>>>> The Americas Group)
On Tue, 9 Jun 2026 08:47:17 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/9/26 7:02 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jun 2026 17:07:29 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/6/26 3:58 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2026 09:38:27 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/21/26 2:05 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2026 19:03:27 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/20/26 11:25 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 19 May 2026 10:09:23 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
[rCa]
Supernaturalism is just the
opposite, and it seems to be a repository for weak minds who can't >>>>>>>>>> figure nature out given the rules of the game.
From 1901 to 2000, just over 86% of Nobel Prize winners expressed
belief in the Judeo-Christian God with only 10.5% being atheists, >>>>>>>>> agnostics, and freethinkers. The figures are particularly striking in >>>>>>>>> science with religious believers accounting for 87% in Chemistry, 80% >>>>>>>>> in Physics and 86% in Medicine. The only discipline where atheists, >>>>>>>>> agnostics, and freethinkers have had significant impact is Literature >>>>>>>>> where they account for 35%.
It seems like those "weak minds" are actually better than atheists at >>>>>>>>> iguring nature out given the rules of the game .
Poor use of statistics.
In what way?
First off, small sample size.
654 Nobel prize laureates is a samll sample size?
Yes. But it depends on what distribution you are claiming it to be a
sample from. This is a minor point.
More importantly, the percentages are not
compared to any null distribution. Are Nobel winners enriched in
Christian/Jewish theists compared to scientists as a whole or to the >>>>>> population as a whole?
But it would help if you could show that these
figures were significantly different (in your favored direction) from >>>>>>>> the percentages for those fields as a whole.
What do you mean by "those fields as a whole"?
I refer to the general populations of chemists, physicists, and medical >>>>>> researchers.
It doesn't seem to occur to you that if the scientists are
representative of the general population, that negates Maycock's claim >>>>> that religion attracts weaker minds.
If. But this has not been determined. That's my point. If we assume that >>>> Nobel prize winners are less likely to have weaker minds than the
general population (of scientists or of people in general?), and if
Nobel prize winner also do not have a lower percentage of religious
believers than the general population (whichever general population you >>>> mean), then your argument is justified. But you have not presented any >>>> information about the prevalence of religion in that population, so no >>>> conclusion can be drawn.
That comes across as a rather verbose way of conceding my point
without admitting you are conceding my point :)
You appear not to understand the issue. And what "comes across" to you
has no resemblance to what I actually said.
Let me repeat: your statistics have nothing to say about Vince's claim.
They might do so if you presented additional data, comparing the numbers
with a different sample. If, for example, you showed that Nobel winners
were no less religious than the general population during the same time
period, that would help your case. But you have not done anything of the
sort. Your response is thus meaningless.
Did that help?
I think you need to go back to what I originally said - "It doesn't
seem to occur to you that *if* the scientists are representative of
the general population ..." [emphasis added].
Let me add that I'm not attempting to support Vince's claim either.
I took that for granted - it's a rather weird claim.
rr
Incidentally, were there no theists who weren't Christian or Jewish? >>>>>>>I don't know, maybe you should contact Shalev, the author.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Religion_of_Nobel_Prize_winners_between_1901_and_2000.png
(Apparently based on Shalev, B. A. (2002). 100 years of Nobel prizes. >>>>>>>>> The Americas Group)
On Sat, 06 Jun 2026 17:52:56 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2026 12:11:45 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2026 06:49:08 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2026 10:01:32 +0100, Martin Harran >>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2026 18:08:46 -0700, Vincent Maycock >>>>><maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2026 19:25:02 +0100, Martin Harran >>>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 May 2026 10:09:23 -0700, Vincent Maycock >>>>>>><maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
[a]
Supernaturalism is just the
opposite, and it seems to be a repository for weak minds who can't >>>>>>>>figure nature out given the rules of the game.
From 1901 to 2000, just over 86% of Nobel Prize winners expressed >>>>>>>belief in the Judeo-Christian God with only 10.5% being atheists, >>>>>>>agnostics, and freethinkers. The figures are particularly striking in >>>>>>>science with religious believers accounting for 87% in Chemistry, 80% >>>>>>>in Physics and 86% in Medicine. The only discipline where atheists, >>>>>>>agnostics, and freethinkers have had significant impact is Literature >>>>>>>where they account for 35%.
That's probably a restriction of range effect. At the highest levels >>>>>>of achievement, factors other than intelligence become more important >>>>>>in predicting success. That, of course, fits with the fact that a >>>>>>higher proportion of scientists in general are atheists when compared >>>>>>to non-scientists.
I assume you are basing that on the 2009 PEW survey as you did the >>>>>last time we discussed this. The details of that survey don't seem to >>>>>be available in the PEW archives but it was carried out on members of >>>>>American Association for the Advancement of Science and AFAIR, the >>>>>group studied were primarily those involved in management/bureaucratic >>>>>roles, not cutting-edge research.
Cite?
If I had a cite, I wouldn't have need to say AFAIR.
You could say that and then go looking for the material that was the
basis for your recollection.
It was in a
commentary I read somewhere but it fits in with my general experience
in a 27-year management consultancy career that membership of a >>>professional body is generally taken up to aid career progression (in >>>some cases necessary as a licence to operate).
Well, at least you weren't saying *I* said that irreligiosity begets
social climbing.
Why make an issue of something that you agree I didn't say?
That's more like testosterone or something that aids
social mobility in particular. If I've said anything about it, I
would mean "social status" to be "a heightened interest in things
people in general refer to in a positive way." That would include
interact with social climbing it (as well as with intelligence per
se), but would not be the same thing as them.
Generally, those tend to be
encourage "going with the flow" rather than challenging the status quo >>>>>or coming up with new ideas; they would therefore seem a more likely >>>>>attraction for those with 'weak minds'.
The details of the poll are here and are consistent with previous >>>>similar findings.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
Thank you for that, I tried to find it but was unsuccessful. >>>Unfortunately, that report does not give any background on the people
in the sample. I would point out, however, that the survey was carried >>>out exclusively in the USA as apparently have the previous surveys >>>referred to. Religion, culture and politics have an interaction in the >>>USA that is more or less unique in the Western world so I would be >>>cautious about applying any conclusions from there to humankind in >>>general.
I thought Western Europe in general was less religious than the United >>States.
As pointed out before, you also ignore the fact that higher positions >>>>>generally mean more affluence and there is a well-recognised >>>>>correlation between increased affluence and decline in religious >>>>>belief which would need to be taken into account before drawing any >>>>>other conclusions about correlation.
These surveys didn't say anything about higher positions.
It seems like those "weak minds" are actually better than atheists at >>>>>>>iguring nature out given the rules of the game .
All right. What scientific phenomena did you have an interest in >>>>>>attributing to supernatural causes?
None - if something is explicable as a *scientific* phenomena than by >>>>>definition, no supernatural cause is required.
So when *is* a supernatural cause required, in your view?
When there is no natural cause. I'm not sure what you are struggling
with here.
I'm not struggling with anything. In particular, how do you
distinguish "no natural cause" from "I don't know what the cause was"?
By weighing up whatever evidence is available. Just like you and
others are convinced that abiogenesis occurred as a random chemical
event when the fact is that you don't know how it occurred - you weigh
up the evidence and draw a conclusion from it.
On Thu, 21 May 2026 10:01:32 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2026 18:08:46 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2026 19:25:02 +0100, Martin Harran >>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 May 2026 10:09:23 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
[rCa]
Supernaturalism is just the
opposite, and it seems to be a repository for weak minds who can't >>>>>figure nature out given the rules of the game.
From 1901 to 2000, just over 86% of Nobel Prize winners expressed >>>>belief in the Judeo-Christian God with only 10.5% being atheists, >>>>agnostics, and freethinkers. The figures are particularly striking in >>>>science with religious believers accounting for 87% in Chemistry, 80% >>>>in Physics and 86% in Medicine. The only discipline where atheists, >>>>agnostics, and freethinkers have had significant impact is Literature >>>>where they account for 35%.
That's probably a restriction of range effect. At the highest levels
of achievement, factors other than intelligence become more important
in predicting success. That, of course, fits with the fact that a
higher proportion of scientists in general are atheists when compared
to non-scientists.
I assume you are basing that on the 2009 PEW survey as you did the
last time we discussed this. The details of that survey don't seem to
be available in the PEW archives but it was carried out on members of >>American Association for the Advancement of Science and AFAIR, the
group studied were primarily those involved in management/bureaucratic >>roles, not cutting-edge research.
Cite?
Generally, those tend to be
encourage "going with the flow" rather than challenging the status quo
or coming up with new ideas; they would therefore seem a more likely >>attraction for those with 'weak minds'.
The details of the poll are here and are consistent with previous
similar findings.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
As pointed out before, you also ignore the fact that higher positions >>generally mean more affluence and there is a well-recognised
correlation between increased affluence and decline in religious
belief which would need to be taken into account before drawing any
other conclusions about correlation.
These surveys didn't say anything about higher positions.
It seems like those "weak minds" are actually better than atheists at >>>>iguring nature out given the rules of the game .
All right. What scientific phenomena did you have an interest in >>>attributing to supernatural causes?
None - if something is explicable as a *scientific* phenomena than by >>definition, no supernatural cause is required.
So when *is* a supernatural cause required, in your view?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Religion_of_Nobel_Prize_winners_between_1901_and_2000.png
(Apparently based on Shalev, B. A. (2002). 100 years of Nobel prizes. >>>>The Americas Group)
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 15:07:39 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2026 17:52:56 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2026 12:11:45 +0100, Martin Harran >>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2026 06:49:08 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2026 10:01:32 +0100, Martin Harran >>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2026 18:08:46 -0700, Vincent Maycock >>>>>><maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2026 19:25:02 +0100, Martin Harran >>>>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 May 2026 10:09:23 -0700, Vincent Maycock >>>>>>>><maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
[rCa]
Supernaturalism is just the
opposite, and it seems to be a repository for weak minds who can't >>>>>>>>>figure nature out given the rules of the game.
From 1901 to 2000, just over 86% of Nobel Prize winners expressed >>>>>>>>belief in the Judeo-Christian God with only 10.5% being atheists, >>>>>>>>agnostics, and freethinkers. The figures are particularly striking in >>>>>>>>science with religious believers accounting for 87% in Chemistry, 80% >>>>>>>>in Physics and 86% in Medicine. The only discipline where atheists, >>>>>>>>agnostics, and freethinkers have had significant impact is Literature >>>>>>>>where they account for 35%.
That's probably a restriction of range effect. At the highest levels >>>>>>>of achievement, factors other than intelligence become more important >>>>>>>in predicting success. That, of course, fits with the fact that a >>>>>>>higher proportion of scientists in general are atheists when compared >>>>>>>to non-scientists.
I assume you are basing that on the 2009 PEW survey as you did the >>>>>>last time we discussed this. The details of that survey don't seem to >>>>>>be available in the PEW archives but it was carried out on members of >>>>>>American Association for the Advancement of Science and AFAIR, the >>>>>>group studied were primarily those involved in management/bureaucratic >>>>>>roles, not cutting-edge research.
Cite?
If I had a cite, I wouldn't have need to say AFAIR.
You could say that and then go looking for the material that was the >>>basis for your recollection.
It was in a
commentary I read somewhere but it fits in with my general experience >>>>in a 27-year management consultancy career that membership of a >>>>professional body is generally taken up to aid career progression (in >>>>some cases necessary as a licence to operate).
Well, at least you weren't saying *I* said that irreligiosity begets >>>social climbing.
Why make an issue of something that you agree I didn't say?
Yes, let's not.
That's more like testosterone or something that aids
social mobility in particular. If I've said anything about it, I
would mean "social status" to be "a heightened interest in things
people in general refer to in a positive way." That would include >>>interact with social climbing it (as well as with intelligence per
se), but would not be the same thing as them.
Thank you for that, I tried to find it but was unsuccessful. >>>>Unfortunately, that report does not give any background on the people >>>>in the sample. I would point out, however, that the survey was carried >>>>out exclusively in the USA as apparently have the previous surveys >>>>referred to. Religion, culture and politics have an interaction in the >>>>USA that is more or less unique in the Western world so I would be >>>>cautious about applying any conclusions from there to humankind in >>>>general.Generally, those tend to be
encourage "going with the flow" rather than challenging the status quo >>>>>>or coming up with new ideas; they would therefore seem a more likely >>>>>>attraction for those with 'weak minds'.
The details of the poll are here and are consistent with previous >>>>>similar findings.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/ >>>>
I thought Western Europe in general was less religious than the United >>>States.
As pointed out before, you also ignore the fact that higher positions >>>>>>generally mean more affluence and there is a well-recognised >>>>>>correlation between increased affluence and decline in religious >>>>>>belief which would need to be taken into account before drawing any >>>>>>other conclusions about correlation.
These surveys didn't say anything about higher positions.
It seems like those "weak minds" are actually better than atheists at >>>>>>>>iguring nature out given the rules of the game .
All right. What scientific phenomena did you have an interest in >>>>>>>attributing to supernatural causes?
None - if something is explicable as a *scientific* phenomena than by >>>>>>definition, no supernatural cause is required.
So when *is* a supernatural cause required, in your view?
When there is no natural cause. I'm not sure what you are struggling >>>>with here.
I'm not struggling with anything. In particular, how do you
distinguish "no natural cause" from "I don't know what the cause was"?
By weighing up whatever evidence is available. Just like you and
others are convinced that abiogenesis occurred as a random chemical
event when the fact is that you don't know how it occurred - you weigh
up the evidence and draw a conclusion from it.
How is it better to say "some supernatural entity did it" than to say
"some natural law did it"? Both of those statements seem equally
vacuous and shouldn't be considered the end-point of a scientific
discussion, in my view.
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 12:07:48 -0700, Vincent Maycock<snip>
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 15:07:39 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2026 17:52:56 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2026 12:11:45 +0100, Martin Harran >>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2026 06:49:08 -0700, Vincent Maycock
So when *is* a supernatural cause required, in your view?
When there is no natural cause. I'm not sure what you are struggling >>>>>with here.
I'm not struggling with anything. In particular, how do you
distinguish "no natural cause" from "I don't know what the cause was"?
By weighing up whatever evidence is available. Just like you and
others are convinced that abiogenesis occurred as a random chemical
event when the fact is that you don't know how it occurred - you weigh
up the evidence and draw a conclusion from it.
How is it better to say "some supernatural entity did it" than to say
"some natural law did it"? Both of those statements seem equally
vacuous and shouldn't be considered the end-point of a scientific >>discussion, in my view.
Same view as myself - I have never called for an end to any form of >scientific discussion or exploration.
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 11:42:42 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 12:07:48 -0700, Vincent Maycock<snip>
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 15:07:39 +0100, Martin Harran >>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2026 17:52:56 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2026 12:11:45 +0100, Martin Harran >>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2026 06:49:08 -0700, Vincent Maycock
By weighing up whatever evidence is available. Just like you andSo when *is* a supernatural cause required, in your view?
When there is no natural cause. I'm not sure what you are struggling >>>>>>with here.
I'm not struggling with anything. In particular, how do you >>>>>distinguish "no natural cause" from "I don't know what the cause was"? >>>>
others are convinced that abiogenesis occurred as a random chemical >>>>event when the fact is that you don't know how it occurred - you weigh >>>>up the evidence and draw a conclusion from it.
How is it better to say "some supernatural entity did it" than to say >>>"some natural law did it"? Both of those statements seem equally
vacuous and shouldn't be considered the end-point of a scientific >>>discussion, in my view.
Same view as myself - I have never called for an end to any form of >>scientific discussion or exploration.
When you conclude that a miracle occurred because you don't see how it >couldn't have happened by natural means, isn't that the end of the
matter scientifically? Or do you somehow continue to investigate how
the miracle occurred or something? What's the deal with that?
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 06:52:47 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 11:42:42 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 12:07:48 -0700, Vincent Maycock<snip>
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 15:07:39 +0100, Martin Harran >>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2026 17:52:56 -0700, Vincent Maycock >>>>><maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2026 12:11:45 +0100, Martin Harran >>>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2026 06:49:08 -0700, Vincent Maycock
By weighing up whatever evidence is available. Just like you and >>>>>others are convinced that abiogenesis occurred as a random chemical >>>>>event when the fact is that you don't know how it occurred - you weigh >>>>>up the evidence and draw a conclusion from it.So when *is* a supernatural cause required, in your view?
When there is no natural cause. I'm not sure what you are struggling >>>>>>>with here.
I'm not struggling with anything. In particular, how do you >>>>>>distinguish "no natural cause" from "I don't know what the cause was"? >>>>>
How is it better to say "some supernatural entity did it" than to say >>>>"some natural law did it"? Both of those statements seem equally >>>>vacuous and shouldn't be considered the end-point of a scientific >>>>discussion, in my view.
Same view as myself - I have never called for an end to any form of >>>scientific discussion or exploration.
When you conclude that a miracle occurred because you don't see how it >>couldn't have happened by natural means, isn't that the end of the
matter scientifically? Or do you somehow continue to investigate how
the miracle occurred or something? What's the deal with that?
The church I belong to - the Catholic Church -
has always taught that
if something is considered to be supernatural
but science finds a
natural explanation, then the church accepts that natural explanation
and revises its understanding.
Mind you, that hasn't happened too
often. The core beliefs of the CC are those espoused in the
Nicene/Apostles Creed - the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection of Christ,
the triune God and so on.
Science hasn't offered any natural
explanations for things like that, and I would not be inclined to hold
my breath waiting for it to do so.
You are making heavy weather on this and I can't figure out why you
are persevering with it.
On 6/9/26 8:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jun 2026 08:47:17 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/9/26 7:02 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jun 2026 17:07:29 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/6/26 3:58 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2026 09:38:27 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/21/26 2:05 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2026 19:03:27 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/20/26 11:25 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 19 May 2026 10:09:23 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
[rCa]
Supernaturalism is just the
opposite, and it seems to be a repository for weak minds who can't >>>>>>>>>>> figure nature out given the rules of the game.
From 1901 to 2000, just over 86% of Nobel Prize winners expressed
belief in the Judeo-Christian God with only 10.5% being atheists, >>>>>>>>>> agnostics, and freethinkers. The figures are particularly striking in
science with religious believers accounting for 87% in Chemistry, 80%
in Physics and 86% in Medicine. The only discipline where atheists, >>>>>>>>>> agnostics, and freethinkers have had significant impact is Literature
where they account for 35%.
It seems like those "weak minds" are actually better than atheists at
iguring nature out given the rules of the game .
Poor use of statistics.
In what way?
First off, small sample size.
654 Nobel prize laureates is a samll sample size?
Yes. But it depends on what distribution you are claiming it to be a >>>>> sample from. This is a minor point.
More importantly, the percentages are not
compared to any null distribution. Are Nobel winners enriched in >>>>>>> Christian/Jewish theists compared to scientists as a whole or to the >>>>>>> population as a whole?
But it would help if you could show that these
figures were significantly different (in your favored direction) from >>>>>>>>> the percentages for those fields as a whole.
What do you mean by "those fields as a whole"?
I refer to the general populations of chemists, physicists, and medical >>>>>>> researchers.
It doesn't seem to occur to you that if the scientists are
representative of the general population, that negates Maycock's claim >>>>>> that religion attracts weaker minds.
If. But this has not been determined. That's my point. If we assume that >>>>> Nobel prize winners are less likely to have weaker minds than the
general population (of scientists or of people in general?), and if
Nobel prize winner also do not have a lower percentage of religious
believers than the general population (whichever general population you >>>>> mean), then your argument is justified. But you have not presented any >>>>> information about the prevalence of religion in that population, so no >>>>> conclusion can be drawn.
That comes across as a rather verbose way of conceding my point
without admitting you are conceding my point :)
You appear not to understand the issue. And what "comes across" to you
has no resemblance to what I actually said.
Let me repeat: your statistics have nothing to say about Vince's claim.
They might do so if you presented additional data, comparing the numbers >>> with a different sample. If, for example, you showed that Nobel winners
were no less religious than the general population during the same time
period, that would help your case. But you have not done anything of the >>> sort. Your response is thus meaningless.
Did that help?
I think you need to go back to what I originally said - "It doesn't
seem to occur to you that *if* the scientists are representative of
the general population ..." [emphasis added].
As I said, "If." Your point relies on that, but you make no attempt to >support it. Your statistic, failing this support, is vacuous. Would you >agree?
Let me add that I'm not attempting to support Vince's claim either.
I took that for granted - it's a rather weird claim.
rr
Incidentally, were there no theists who weren't Christian or Jewish? >>>>>>>>I don't know, maybe you should contact Shalev, the author.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Religion_of_Nobel_Prize_winners_between_1901_and_2000.png
(Apparently based on Shalev, B. A. (2002). 100 years of Nobel prizes.
The Americas Group)
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 15:28:56 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 06:52:47 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 11:42:42 +0100, Martin Harran >>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 12:07:48 -0700, Vincent Maycock<snip>
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 15:07:39 +0100, Martin Harran >>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2026 17:52:56 -0700, Vincent Maycock >>>>>><maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2026 12:11:45 +0100, Martin Harran >>>>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2026 06:49:08 -0700, Vincent Maycock
By weighing up whatever evidence is available. Just like you and >>>>>>others are convinced that abiogenesis occurred as a random chemical >>>>>>event when the fact is that you don't know how it occurred - you weigh >>>>>>up the evidence and draw a conclusion from it.So when *is* a supernatural cause required, in your view?
When there is no natural cause. I'm not sure what you are struggling >>>>>>>>with here.
I'm not struggling with anything. In particular, how do you >>>>>>>distinguish "no natural cause" from "I don't know what the cause was"? >>>>>>
How is it better to say "some supernatural entity did it" than to say >>>>>"some natural law did it"? Both of those statements seem equally >>>>>vacuous and shouldn't be considered the end-point of a scientific >>>>>discussion, in my view.
Same view as myself - I have never called for an end to any form of >>>>scientific discussion or exploration.
When you conclude that a miracle occurred because you don't see how it >>>couldn't have happened by natural means, isn't that the end of the
matter scientifically? Or do you somehow continue to investigate how
the miracle occurred or something? What's the deal with that?
The church I belong to - the Catholic Church -
The only *true* Church, right? LOL!
has always taught that
if something is considered to be supernatural
What are the criteria for teaching that something is supernatural
(other than that you couldn't figure out how it happened naturally)?
And does anyone ever conclude that supernatural events occurred for
any reason other than that they "can't be explained naturally"?
but science finds a
natural explanation, then the church accepts that natural explanation
and revises its understanding.
So when you talk about a miracle happening, you always make it clear
that your conclusion in the matter is tentative, pending the results
of continued research into the supposed miracle?
And why would God choose to make himself known in such an awkward and >secretive manner (i.e., when science supposedly can't explain
something) rather than other forms of knowledge acquisition such as
those found in science, history, and, of course, the evening news?
Mind you, that hasn't happened too
often. The core beliefs of the CC are those espoused in the
Nicene/Apostles Creed - the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection of Christ,
the triune God and so on.
As I understand it, none of those "miracles" are tentative like what
we have in science. Are you claiming that someone may find an
explanation for the Virgin Birth, etc.?
Science hasn't offered any natural
explanations for things like that, and I would not be inclined to hold
my breath waiting for it to do so.
There's actually no reason to believe those things even happened, much
less that they were miraculous.
You are making heavy weather on this and I can't figure out why you
are persevering with it.
My claim is that supernatural explanations are irrational.
So when
you talk about miracles because science can't explain them, on the
same topics I can just as well talk about natural events that religion
can't explain, with both statements being equally well-supported by
the evidence, at least without more being said on the topic.
On Tue, 9 Jun 2026 10:37:35 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/9/26 8:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jun 2026 08:47:17 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/9/26 7:02 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jun 2026 17:07:29 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/6/26 3:58 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2026 09:38:27 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/21/26 2:05 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2026 19:03:27 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/20/26 11:25 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 19 May 2026 10:09:23 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
[rCa]
Supernaturalism is just the
opposite, and it seems to be a repository for weak minds who can't >>>>>>>>>>>> figure nature out given the rules of the game.
From 1901 to 2000, just over 86% of Nobel Prize winners expressed
belief in the Judeo-Christian God with only 10.5% being atheists, >>>>>>>>>>> agnostics, and freethinkers. The figures are particularly striking in
science with religious believers accounting for 87% in Chemistry, 80%
in Physics and 86% in Medicine. The only discipline where atheists, >>>>>>>>>>> agnostics, and freethinkers have had significant impact is Literature
where they account for 35%.
It seems like those "weak minds" are actually better than atheists at
iguring nature out given the rules of the game .
Poor use of statistics.
In what way?
First off, small sample size.
654 Nobel prize laureates is a samll sample size?
Yes. But it depends on what distribution you are claiming it to be a >>>>>> sample from. This is a minor point.
More importantly, the percentages are not
compared to any null distribution. Are Nobel winners enriched in >>>>>>>> Christian/Jewish theists compared to scientists as a whole or to the >>>>>>>> population as a whole?
But it would help if you could show that these
figures were significantly different (in your favored direction) from
the percentages for those fields as a whole.
What do you mean by "those fields as a whole"?
I refer to the general populations of chemists, physicists, and medical
researchers.
It doesn't seem to occur to you that if the scientists are
representative of the general population, that negates Maycock's claim >>>>>>> that religion attracts weaker minds.
If. But this has not been determined. That's my point. If we assume that >>>>>> Nobel prize winners are less likely to have weaker minds than the
general population (of scientists or of people in general?), and if >>>>>> Nobel prize winner also do not have a lower percentage of religious >>>>>> believers than the general population (whichever general population you >>>>>> mean), then your argument is justified. But you have not presented any >>>>>> information about the prevalence of religion in that population, so no >>>>>> conclusion can be drawn.
That comes across as a rather verbose way of conceding my point
without admitting you are conceding my point :)
You appear not to understand the issue. And what "comes across" to you >>>> has no resemblance to what I actually said.
Let me repeat: your statistics have nothing to say about Vince's claim. >>>> They might do so if you presented additional data, comparing the numbers >>>> with a different sample. If, for example, you showed that Nobel winners >>>> were no less religious than the general population during the same time >>>> period, that would help your case. But you have not done anything of the >>>> sort. Your response is thus meaningless.
Did that help?
I think you need to go back to what I originally said - "It doesn't
seem to occur to you that *if* the scientists are representative of
the general population ..." [emphasis added].
As I said, "If." Your point relies on that, but you make no attempt to
support it. Your statistic, failing this support, is vacuous. Would you
agree?
Sorry, John this is turning into one of your interminable semantic
debates for which I have no appetite.
Let me add that I'm not attempting to support Vince's claim either.
I took that for granted - it's a rather weird claim.
rr
Incidentally, were there no theists who weren't Christian or Jewish? >>>>>>>>>I don't know, maybe you should contact Shalev, the author.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Religion_of_Nobel_Prize_winners_between_1901_and_2000.png
(Apparently based on Shalev, B. A. (2002). 100 years of Nobel prizes.
The Americas Group)
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 10:17:30 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 15:28:56 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 06:52:47 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 11:42:42 +0100, Martin Harran >>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 12:07:48 -0700, Vincent Maycock >>>>><maycock@gmail.com> wrote:<snip>
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 15:07:39 +0100, Martin Harran >>>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2026 17:52:56 -0700, Vincent Maycock >>>>>>><maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2026 12:11:45 +0100, Martin Harran >>>>>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2026 06:49:08 -0700, Vincent Maycock
By weighing up whatever evidence is available. Just like you and >>>>>>>others are convinced that abiogenesis occurred as a random chemical >>>>>>>event when the fact is that you don't know how it occurred - you weigh >>>>>>>up the evidence and draw a conclusion from it.So when *is* a supernatural cause required, in your view?
When there is no natural cause. I'm not sure what you are struggling >>>>>>>>>with here.
I'm not struggling with anything. In particular, how do you >>>>>>>>distinguish "no natural cause" from "I don't know what the cause was"? >>>>>>>
How is it better to say "some supernatural entity did it" than to say >>>>>>"some natural law did it"? Both of those statements seem equally >>>>>>vacuous and shouldn't be considered the end-point of a scientific >>>>>>discussion, in my view.
Same view as myself - I have never called for an end to any form of >>>>>scientific discussion or exploration.
When you conclude that a miracle occurred because you don't see how it >>>>couldn't have happened by natural means, isn't that the end of the >>>>matter scientifically? Or do you somehow continue to investigate how >>>>the miracle occurred or something? What's the deal with that?
The church I belong to - the Catholic Church -
The only *true* Church, right? LOL!
Snideness does not help your argument.
has always taught that
if something is considered to be supernatural
What are the criteria for teaching that something is supernatural
(other than that you couldn't figure out how it happened naturally)?
And does anyone ever conclude that supernatural events occurred for
any reason other than that they "can't be explained naturally"?
but science finds a
natural explanation, then the church accepts that natural explanation
and revises its understanding.
So when you talk about a miracle happening, you always make it clear
that your conclusion in the matter is tentative, pending the results
of continued research into the supposed miracle?
And why would God choose to make himself known in such an awkward and >>secretive manner (i.e., when science supposedly can't explain
something) rather than other forms of knowledge acquisition such as
those found in science, history, and, of course, the evening news?
Mind you, that hasn't happened too
often. The core beliefs of the CC are those espoused in the >>>Nicene/Apostles Creed - the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection of Christ,
the triune God and so on.
As I understand it, none of those "miracles" are tentative like what
we have in science. Are you claiming that someone may find an
explanation for the Virgin Birth, etc.?
If someone could find an explanation for them then they wouldn't be >supernatural.
Science hasn't offered any natural
explanations for things like that, and I would not be inclined to hold
my breath waiting for it to do so.
There's actually no reason to believe those things even happened, much
less that they were miraculous.
You are making heavy weather on this and I can't figure out why you
are persevering with it.
My claim is that supernatural explanations are irrational.
You definition of "irrational" seems to be anything that doesn't fit
in with your worldview.
My relihgious beliefs are based on many years of study, discussion and >reflection looking at the arguments for and against.
That does not
mean that my conclusions are necessarily correct but at least they are >*informed* conclusions. You have never given any indication of any >significant research yet dismiss reliogious belief out of hand. I
regard *that* as irrational.
So when
you talk about miracles because science can't explain them, on the
same topics I can just as well talk about natural events that religion >>can't explain, with both statements being equally well-supported by
the evidence, at least without more being said on the topic.
On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 12:30:34 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 10:17:30 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 15:28:56 +0100, Martin Harran >>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 06:52:47 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 11:42:42 +0100, Martin Harran >>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 12:07:48 -0700, Vincent Maycock >>>>>><maycock@gmail.com> wrote:<snip>
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 15:07:39 +0100, Martin Harran >>>>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2026 17:52:56 -0700, Vincent Maycock >>>>>>>><maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2026 12:11:45 +0100, Martin Harran >>>>>>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2026 06:49:08 -0700, Vincent Maycock
By weighing up whatever evidence is available. Just like you and >>>>>>>>others are convinced that abiogenesis occurred as a random chemical >>>>>>>>event when the fact is that you don't know how it occurred - you weigh >>>>>>>>up the evidence and draw a conclusion from it.So when *is* a supernatural cause required, in your view?
When there is no natural cause. I'm not sure what you are struggling >>>>>>>>>>with here.
I'm not struggling with anything. In particular, how do you >>>>>>>>>distinguish "no natural cause" from "I don't know what the cause was"? >>>>>>>>
How is it better to say "some supernatural entity did it" than to say >>>>>>>"some natural law did it"? Both of those statements seem equally >>>>>>>vacuous and shouldn't be considered the end-point of a scientific >>>>>>>discussion, in my view.
Same view as myself - I have never called for an end to any form of >>>>>>scientific discussion or exploration.
When you conclude that a miracle occurred because you don't see how it >>>>>couldn't have happened by natural means, isn't that the end of the >>>>>matter scientifically? Or do you somehow continue to investigate how >>>>>the miracle occurred or something? What's the deal with that?
The church I belong to - the Catholic Church -
The only *true* Church, right? LOL!
Snideness does not help your argument.
So *is* there salvation outside of the Church?
has always taught that
if something is considered to be supernatural
What are the criteria for teaching that something is supernatural
(other than that you couldn't figure out how it happened naturally)?
And does anyone ever conclude that supernatural events occurred for
any reason other than that they "can't be explained naturally"?
but science finds a
natural explanation, then the church accepts that natural explanation >>>>and revises its understanding.
So when you talk about a miracle happening, you always make it clear
that your conclusion in the matter is tentative, pending the results
of continued research into the supposed miracle?
And why would God choose to make himself known in such an awkward and >>>secretive manner (i.e., when science supposedly can't explain
something) rather than other forms of knowledge acquisition such as
those found in science, history, and, of course, the evening news?
Mind you, that hasn't happened too
often. The core beliefs of the CC are those espoused in the >>>>Nicene/Apostles Creed - the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection of Christ, >>>>the triune God and so on.
As I understand it, none of those "miracles" are tentative like what
we have in science. Are you claiming that someone may find an >>>explanation for the Virgin Birth, etc.?
If someone could find an explanation for them then they wouldn't be >>supernatural.
So if you can't find an explanation, why not just say "I don't know of
any explanation" rather than adding anything about the "supernatural"?
Science hasn't offered any natural
explanations for things like that, and I would not be inclined to hold >>>>my breath waiting for it to do so.
There's actually no reason to believe those things even happened, much >>>less that they were miraculous.
You are making heavy weather on this and I can't figure out why you
are persevering with it.
My claim is that supernatural explanations are irrational.
You definition of "irrational" seems to be anything that doesn't fit
in with your worldview.
From a sample size of one you've concluded this?
My relihgious beliefs are based on many years of study, discussion and >>reflection looking at the arguments for and against.
So here's your chance to tell why "A supernatural god did it" is
better than "We don't know what caused it".
That does not
mean that my conclusions are necessarily correct but at least they are >>*informed* conclusions. You have never given any indication of any >>significant research yet dismiss reliogious belief out of hand. I
regard *that* as irrational.
I grew up a very conservative Christian, and everyone in my family
still fits that description. Not only that, but the United States is >overwhelmingly Christian, so I'm steeped in Christian lore no matter
which direction I look in.
So no "research" is needed to get me up to
speed on Christian theology.
So when
you talk about miracles because science can't explain them, on the
same topics I can just as well talk about natural events that religion >>>can't explain, with both statements being equally well-supported by
the evidence, at least without more being said on the topic.
On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 08:59:35 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 12:30:34 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 10:17:30 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 15:28:56 +0100, Martin Harran >>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 06:52:47 -0700, Vincent Maycock >>>>><maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 11:42:42 +0100, Martin Harran >>>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 12:07:48 -0700, Vincent Maycock >>>>>>><maycock@gmail.com> wrote:<snip>
On Tue, 09 Jun 2026 15:07:39 +0100, Martin Harran >>>>>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2026 17:52:56 -0700, Vincent Maycock >>>>>>>>><maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2026 12:11:45 +0100, Martin Harran >>>>>>>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2026 06:49:08 -0700, Vincent Maycock
So when *is* a supernatural cause required, in your view? >>>>>>>>>>>When there is no natural cause. I'm not sure what you are struggling >>>>>>>>>>>with here.
I'm not struggling with anything. In particular, how do you >>>>>>>>>>distinguish "no natural cause" from "I don't know what the cause was"?
By weighing up whatever evidence is available. Just like you and >>>>>>>>>others are convinced that abiogenesis occurred as a random chemical >>>>>>>>>event when the fact is that you don't know how it occurred - you weigh >>>>>>>>>up the evidence and draw a conclusion from it.
How is it better to say "some supernatural entity did it" than to say >>>>>>>>"some natural law did it"? Both of those statements seem equally >>>>>>>>vacuous and shouldn't be considered the end-point of a scientific >>>>>>>>discussion, in my view.
Same view as myself - I have never called for an end to any form of >>>>>>>scientific discussion or exploration.
When you conclude that a miracle occurred because you don't see how it >>>>>>couldn't have happened by natural means, isn't that the end of the >>>>>>matter scientifically? Or do you somehow continue to investigate how >>>>>>the miracle occurred or something? What's the deal with that?
The church I belong to - the Catholic Church -
The only *true* Church, right? LOL!
Snideness does not help your argument.
So *is* there salvation outside of the Church?
Of course there is. The fact that you ask the question show how little
you really know about Catholic beliefs.
has always taught that
if something is considered to be supernatural
What are the criteria for teaching that something is supernatural >>>>(other than that you couldn't figure out how it happened naturally)?
And does anyone ever conclude that supernatural events occurred for
any reason other than that they "can't be explained naturally"?
but science finds a
natural explanation, then the church accepts that natural explanation >>>>>and revises its understanding.
So when you talk about a miracle happening, you always make it clear >>>>that your conclusion in the matter is tentative, pending the results
of continued research into the supposed miracle?
And why would God choose to make himself known in such an awkward and >>>>secretive manner (i.e., when science supposedly can't explain >>>>something) rather than other forms of knowledge acquisition such as >>>>those found in science, history, and, of course, the evening news?
Mind you, that hasn't happened too
often. The core beliefs of the CC are those espoused in the >>>>>Nicene/Apostles Creed - the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection of Christ, >>>>>the triune God and so on.
As I understand it, none of those "miracles" are tentative like what
we have in science. Are you claiming that someone may find an >>>>explanation for the Virgin Birth, etc.?
If someone could find an explanation for them then they wouldn't be >>>supernatural.
So if you can't find an explanation, why not just say "I don't know of
any explanation" rather than adding anything about the "supernatural"?
Science hasn't offered any natural
explanations for things like that, and I would not be inclined to hold >>>>>my breath waiting for it to do so.
There's actually no reason to believe those things even happened, much >>>>less that they were miraculous.
You are making heavy weather on this and I can't figure out why you >>>>>are persevering with it.
My claim is that supernatural explanations are irrational.
You definition of "irrational" seems to be anything that doesn't fit
in with your worldview.
From a sample size of one you've concluded this?
My relihgious beliefs are based on many years of study, discussion and >>>reflection looking at the arguments for and against.
So here's your chance to tell why "A supernatural god did it" is
better than "We don't know what caused it".
That does not
mean that my conclusions are necessarily correct but at least they are >>>*informed* conclusions. You have never given any indication of any >>>significant research yet dismiss reliogious belief out of hand. I
regard *that* as irrational.
I grew up a very conservative Christian, and everyone in my family
still fits that description. Not only that, but the United States is >>overwhelmingly Christian, so I'm steeped in Christian lore no matter
which direction I look in.
As I've pointed out before, religion, culture and politics are
uniquely intertwined in the USA so I would suspect that your
experience growing up in it gave you a rather narrow outlook on
religious belief - especially if the background was evangelical which
your post seems to suggest.
So no "research" is needed to get me up to
speed on Christian theology.
That's the key difference between us - even with my own extensive
religious study and research, I would make no claim to be sufficiently >knowledgeable about it with nothing more to learn.
I go with Benjamin
Franking and his observation that ""Being ignorant is not so much a
shame, as being unwilling to learn."
So when
you talk about miracles because science can't explain them, on the
same topics I can just as well talk about natural events that religion >>>>can't explain, with both statements being equally well-supported by
the evidence, at least without more being said on the topic.
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 16:49:28 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
The church I belong to - the Catholic Church -
The only *true* Church, right? LOL!
Snideness does not help your argument.
So *is* there salvation outside of the Church?
Of course there is. The fact that you ask the question show how little
you really know about Catholic beliefs.
So are Protestants eligible for salvation?
As I've pointed out before, religion, culture and politics are
uniquely intertwined in the USA so I would suspect that your
experience growing up in it gave you a rather narrow outlook on
religious belief - especially if the background was evangelical which
your post seems to suggest.
Seventh-day Adventist.
So no "research" is needed to get me up to
speed on Christian theology.
That's the key difference between us - even with my own extensive
religious study and research, I would make no claim to be sufficiently >>knowledgeable about it with nothing more to learn.
What more do you find you need to learn?
I go with Benjamin
Franking and his observation that ""Being ignorant is not so much a
shame, as being unwilling to learn."
I don't find religion to be that complex a topic. Most of its claims
can be shown to be silly or non-sequiturs and so on, and can be
debunked with a little thought. That's the problem with accepting
claims that are not empirically based.
So when
you talk about miracles because science can't explain them, on the >>>>>same topics I can just as well talk about natural events that religion >>>>>can't explain, with both statements being equally well-supported by >>>>>the evidence, at least without more being said on the topic.
Trial of Facts
Trial of Facts
On Sun, 21 Jun 2026 14:53:13 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 16:49:28 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
[a]
The church I belong to - the Catholic Church -
The only *true* Church, right? LOL!
Snideness does not help your argument.
So *is* there salvation outside of the Church?
Of course there is. The fact that you ask the question show how little >>>you really know about Catholic beliefs.
So are Protestants eligible for salvation?
Of course they are - as are Jews, Muslims, Hindus a.
Here's a conundrum for you - not looking for an answer, just something
for you to think about.
Abaraham, Isaac, Moses and the other prophets were Jews and were all
dead long before the Catholic Church came into existence; does that
mean they were not eligible for salvation?
As I've pointed out before, religion, culture and politics are
uniquely intertwined in the USA so I would suspect that your
experience growing up in it gave you a rather narrow outlook on
religious belief - especially if the background was evangelical which >>>your post seems to suggest.
Seventh-day Adventist.
So no "research" is needed to get me up to
speed on Christian theology.
You think that growing up Seventh-day Adventist gave you a
well-rounded understanding of religious belief?
That's the key difference between us - even with my own extensive >>>religious study and research, I would make no claim to be sufficiently >>>knowledgeable about it with nothing more to learn.
What more do you find you need to learn?
Stuff that I either don't know or don't fully understand.
I go with Benjamin
Franking and his observation that ""Being ignorant is not so much a >>>shame, as being unwilling to learn."
I don't find religion to be that complex a topic. Most of its claims
can be shown to be silly or non-sequiturs and so on, and can be
debunked with a little thought. That's the problem with accepting
claims that are not empirically based.
OK, here's a link to the Nicene Creed which contains the core beliefs
of Christians. Would you care to pick one of them and debunk it?
https://www.loyolapress.com/catholic-resources/prayer/traditional-catholic-prayers/prayers-every-catholic-should-know/nicene-creed/
So when
you talk about miracles because science can't explain them, on the >>>>>>same topics I can just as well talk about natural events that religion >>>>>>can't explain, with both statements being equally well-supported by >>>>>>the evidence, at least without more being said on the topic.
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 21:13:37 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
Trial of Facts
On Sun, 21 Jun 2026 14:53:13 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 16:49:28 +0100, Martin Harran >>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
[rCa]
The church I belong to - the Catholic Church -
The only *true* Church, right? LOL!
Snideness does not help your argument.
So *is* there salvation outside of the Church?
Of course there is. The fact that you ask the question show how little >>>>you really know about Catholic beliefs.
So are Protestants eligible for salvation?
Of course they are - as are Jews, Muslims, Hindus rCa.
So how do you relate that to "extra ecclesiam nulla salus"?
Here's a conundrum for you - not looking for an answer, just something
for you to think about.
Abaraham, Isaac, Moses and the other prophets were Jews and were all
dead long before the Catholic Church came into existence; does that
mean they were not eligible for salvation?
Yes. So it looks like we have reductio ad absurdum, indicating a
debunking of traditional Catholic dogma.
As I've pointed out before, religion, culture and politics are
uniquely intertwined in the USA so I would suspect that your
experience growing up in it gave you a rather narrow outlook on >>>>religious belief - especially if the background was evangelical which >>>>your post seems to suggest.
Seventh-day Adventist.
So no "research" is needed to get me up to
speed on Christian theology.
You think that growing up Seventh-day Adventist gave you a
well-rounded understanding of religious belief?
Compared to some random guy off the street, yes.
We had to study to
learn why we were right (LOL!) so much of the time!
That's the key difference between us - even with my own extensive >>>>religious study and research, I would make no claim to be sufficiently >>>>knowledgeable about it with nothing more to learn.
What more do you find you need to learn?
Stuff that I either don't know or don't fully understand.
Such as?
I go with Benjamin
Franking and his observation that ""Being ignorant is not so much a >>>>shame, as being unwilling to learn."
I don't find religion to be that complex a topic. Most of its claims
can be shown to be silly or non-sequiturs and so on, and can be
debunked with a little thought. That's the problem with accepting
claims that are not empirically based.
OK, here's a link to the Nicene Creed which contains the core beliefs
of Christians. Would you care to pick one of them and debunk it?
https://www.loyolapress.com/catholic-resources/prayer/traditional-catholic-prayers/prayers-every-catholic-should-know/nicene-creed/
Sure. So if we start at the beginning, we find the claim that the
Father created everything, which seems to leave little room for his
son Jesus, who was supposed to have been involved in creation as well.
So when
you talk about miracles because science can't explain them, on the >>>>>>>same topics I can just as well talk about natural events that religion >>>>>>>can't explain, with both statements being equally well-supported by >>>>>>>the evidence, at least without more being said on the topic.
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 21:29:54 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 21:13:37 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
Trial of Facts
On Sun, 21 Jun 2026 14:53:13 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 16:49:28 +0100, Martin Harran >>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
[a]
The church I belong to - the Catholic Church -
The only *true* Church, right? LOL!
Snideness does not help your argument.
So *is* there salvation outside of the Church?
Of course there is. The fact that you ask the question show how little >>>>>you really know about Catholic beliefs.
So are Protestants eligible for salvation?
Of course they are - as are Jews, Muslims, Hindus a.
So how do you relate that to "extra ecclesiam nulla salus"?
Here's a conundrum for you - not looking for an answer, just something >>>for you to think about.
Abaraham, Isaac, Moses and the other prophets were Jews and were all
dead long before the Catholic Church came into existence; does that
mean they were not eligible for salvation?
Yes. So it looks like we have reductio ad absurdum, indicating a
debunking of traditional Catholic dogma.
Or maybe it's just your lack of understanding of that Catholic dogma.
As I've pointed out before, religion, culture and politics are >>>>>uniquely intertwined in the USA so I would suspect that your >>>>>experience growing up in it gave you a rather narrow outlook on >>>>>religious belief - especially if the background was evangelical which >>>>>your post seems to suggest.
Seventh-day Adventist.
So no "research" is needed to get me up to
speed on Christian theology.
You think that growing up Seventh-day Adventist gave you a
well-rounded understanding of religious belief?
Compared to some random guy off the street, yes.
That's a pretty low bar!
We had to study to
learn why we were right (LOL!) so much of the time!
That's the key difference between us - even with my own extensive >>>>>religious study and research, I would make no claim to be sufficiently >>>>>knowledgeable about it with nothing more to learn.
What more do you find you need to learn?
Stuff that I either don't know or don't fully understand.
Such as?
The nature of God.
I go with Benjamin
Franking and his observation that ""Being ignorant is not so much a >>>>>shame, as being unwilling to learn."
I don't find religion to be that complex a topic. Most of its claims >>>>can be shown to be silly or non-sequiturs and so on, and can be >>>>debunked with a little thought. That's the problem with accepting >>>>claims that are not empirically based.
OK, here's a link to the Nicene Creed which contains the core beliefs
of Christians. Would you care to pick one of them and debunk it?
https://www.loyolapress.com/catholic-resources/prayer/traditional-catholic-prayers/prayers-every-catholic-should-know/nicene-creed/
Sure. So if we start at the beginning, we find the claim that the
Father created everything, which seems to leave little room for his
son Jesus, who was supposed to have been involved in creation as well.
So the triune nature of God is something else you don't understand.
So when
you talk about miracles because science can't explain them, on the >>>>>>>>same topics I can just as well talk about natural events that religion >>>>>>>>can't explain, with both statements being equally well-supported by >>>>>>>>the evidence, at least without more being said on the topic.
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 16:51:18 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 21:29:54 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 21:13:37 +0100, Martin Harran >>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
Trial of Facts
On Sun, 21 Jun 2026 14:53:13 -0700, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 16:49:28 +0100, Martin Harran >>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
[rCa]
The church I belong to - the Catholic Church -
The only *true* Church, right? LOL!
Snideness does not help your argument.
So *is* there salvation outside of the Church?
Of course there is. The fact that you ask the question show how little >>>>>>you really know about Catholic beliefs.
So are Protestants eligible for salvation?
Of course they are - as are Jews, Muslims, Hindus rCa.
So how do you relate that to "extra ecclesiam nulla salus"?
Here's a conundrum for you - not looking for an answer, just something >>>>for you to think about.
Abaraham, Isaac, Moses and the other prophets were Jews and were all >>>>dead long before the Catholic Church came into existence; does that >>>>mean they were not eligible for salvation?
Yes. So it looks like we have reductio ad absurdum, indicating a >>>debunking of traditional Catholic dogma.
Or maybe it's just your lack of understanding of that Catholic dogma.
Catholic dogma has evolved over the years, hasn't it?
As I've pointed out before, religion, culture and politics are >>>>>>uniquely intertwined in the USA so I would suspect that your >>>>>>experience growing up in it gave you a rather narrow outlook on >>>>>>religious belief - especially if the background was evangelical which >>>>>>your post seems to suggest.
Seventh-day Adventist.
So no "research" is needed to get me up to
speed on Christian theology.
You think that growing up Seventh-day Adventist gave you a
well-rounded understanding of religious belief?
Compared to some random guy off the street, yes.
That's a pretty low bar!
Just checking to see if you thought I cleared it.
We had to study to
learn why we were right (LOL!) so much of the time!
That's the key difference between us - even with my own extensive >>>>>>religious study and research, I would make no claim to be sufficiently >>>>>>knowledgeable about it with nothing more to learn.
What more do you find you need to learn?
Stuff that I either don't know or don't fully understand.
Such as?
The nature of God.
What don't you understand about the nature of God?
I go with Benjamin
Franking and his observation that ""Being ignorant is not so much a >>>>>>shame, as being unwilling to learn."
I don't find religion to be that complex a topic. Most of its claims >>>>>can be shown to be silly or non-sequiturs and so on, and can be >>>>>debunked with a little thought. That's the problem with accepting >>>>>claims that are not empirically based.
OK, here's a link to the Nicene Creed which contains the core beliefs >>>>of Christians. Would you care to pick one of them and debunk it?
https://www.loyolapress.com/catholic-resources/prayer/traditional-catholic-prayers/prayers-every-catholic-should-know/nicene-creed/
Sure. So if we start at the beginning, we find the claim that the
Father created everything, which seems to leave little room for his
son Jesus, who was supposed to have been involved in creation as well.
So the triune nature of God is something else you don't understand.
I understand that it's largely non-Biblical (or at the least isn't
elaborated well there), but it's not that difficult a concept to
grasp.
So when
you talk about miracles because science can't explain them, on the >>>>>>>>>same topics I can just as well talk about natural events that religion >>>>>>>>>can't explain, with both statements being equally well-supported by >>>>>>>>>the evidence, at least without more being said on the topic.
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 15:10:04 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 16:51:18 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 21:29:54 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 21:13:37 +0100, Martin Harran >>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
Trial of Facts
On Sun, 21 Jun 2026 14:53:13 -0700, Vincent Maycock >>>>><maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 16:49:28 +0100, Martin Harran >>>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
[a]
The church I belong to - the Catholic Church -
The only *true* Church, right? LOL!
Snideness does not help your argument.
So *is* there salvation outside of the Church?
Of course there is. The fact that you ask the question show how little >>>>>>>you really know about Catholic beliefs.
So are Protestants eligible for salvation?
Of course they are - as are Jews, Muslims, Hindus a.
So how do you relate that to "extra ecclesiam nulla salus"?
Here's a conundrum for you - not looking for an answer, just something >>>>>for you to think about.
Abaraham, Isaac, Moses and the other prophets were Jews and were all >>>>>dead long before the Catholic Church came into existence; does that >>>>>mean they were not eligible for salvation?
Yes. So it looks like we have reductio ad absurdum, indicating a >>>>debunking of traditional Catholic dogma.
Or maybe it's just your lack of understanding of that Catholic dogma.
Catholic dogma has evolved over the years, hasn't it?
Of course it has. Way do you think we still have theologians ~2K years
after the Church was established?
As I've pointed out before, religion, culture and politics are >>>>>>>uniquely intertwined in the USA so I would suspect that your >>>>>>>experience growing up in it gave you a rather narrow outlook on >>>>>>>religious belief - especially if the background was evangelical which >>>>>>>your post seems to suggest.
Seventh-day Adventist.
So no "research" is needed to get me up to
speed on Christian theology.
You think that growing up Seventh-day Adventist gave you a >>>>>well-rounded understanding of religious belief?
Compared to some random guy off the street, yes.
That's a pretty low bar!
Just checking to see if you thought I cleared it.
We had to study to
learn why we were right (LOL!) so much of the time!
That's the key difference between us - even with my own extensive >>>>>>>religious study and research, I would make no claim to be sufficiently >>>>>>>knowledgeable about it with nothing more to learn.
What more do you find you need to learn?
Stuff that I either don't know or don't fully understand.
Such as?
The nature of God.
What don't you understand about the nature of God?
I go with Benjamin
Franking and his observation that ""Being ignorant is not so much a >>>>>>>shame, as being unwilling to learn."
I don't find religion to be that complex a topic. Most of its claims >>>>>>can be shown to be silly or non-sequiturs and so on, and can be >>>>>>debunked with a little thought. That's the problem with accepting >>>>>>claims that are not empirically based.
OK, here's a link to the Nicene Creed which contains the core beliefs >>>>>of Christians. Would you care to pick one of them and debunk it?
https://www.loyolapress.com/catholic-resources/prayer/traditional-catholic-prayers/prayers-every-catholic-should-know/nicene-creed/
Sure. So if we start at the beginning, we find the claim that the >>>>Father created everything, which seems to leave little room for his
son Jesus, who was supposed to have been involved in creation as well.
So the triune nature of God is something else you don't understand.
I understand that it's largely non-Biblical (or at the least isn't >>elaborated well there), but it's not that difficult a concept to
grasp.
If you grasped it, you wouldn't have put up the argument you just did
about the first part of the Nicene Creed.
So when
you talk about miracles because science can't explain them, on the >>>>>>>>>>same topics I can just as well talk about natural events that religion
can't explain, with both statements being equally well-supported by >>>>>>>>>>the evidence, at least without more being said on the topic.
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 14:48:51 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 15:10:04 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
Catholic dogma has evolved over the years, hasn't it?
Of course it has. Way do you think we still have theologians ~2K years >>after the Church was established?
Why are they struggling with that?
And will we need a new Bible any
time soon that will reflect their progress?
So the triune nature of God is something else you don't understand.I don't find religion to be that complex a topic. Most of its claims >>>>>>>can be shown to be silly or non-sequiturs and so on, and can be >>>>>>>debunked with a little thought. That's the problem with accepting >>>>>>>claims that are not empirically based.
OK, here's a link to the Nicene Creed which contains the core beliefs >>>>>>of Christians. Would you care to pick one of them and debunk it?
https://www.loyolapress.com/catholic-resources/prayer/traditional-catholic-prayers/prayers-every-catholic-should-know/nicene-creed/
Sure. So if we start at the beginning, we find the claim that the >>>>>Father created everything, which seems to leave little room for his >>>>>son Jesus, who was supposed to have been involved in creation as well. >>>>
I understand that it's largely non-Biblical (or at the least isn't >>>elaborated well there), but it's not that difficult a concept to
grasp.
If you grasped it, you wouldn't have put up the argument you just did
about the first part of the Nicene Creed.
Okay, what about this one: if Jesus is equal to the Father, why is he
so often portrayed in a subordinate role to the Father (is begotten
of, is sent by, sits at the right hand of)?
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 18:02:51 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 14:48:51 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 15:10:04 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
[rCa]
Catholic dogma has evolved over the years, hasn't it?
Of course it has. Way do you think we still have theologians ~2K years
after the Church was established?
Why are they struggling with that?
Pretty much the same reasons as scientists are still trying to figure
out stuff about biology, cosmology and loads of other stuff.
And will we need a new Bible any
time soon that will reflect their progress?
Do we need a new version of Darwin's 'Origins' because of all the
stuff we have come to understand since it was written?
[rCa]
So the triune nature of God is something else you don't understand.I don't find religion to be that complex a topic. Most of its claims >>>>>>>> can be shown to be silly or non-sequiturs and so on, and can be >>>>>>>> debunked with a little thought. That's the problem with accepting >>>>>>>> claims that are not empirically based.
OK, here's a link to the Nicene Creed which contains the core beliefs >>>>>>> of Christians. Would you care to pick one of them and debunk it? >>>>>>>
https://www.loyolapress.com/catholic-resources/prayer/traditional-catholic-prayers/prayers-every-catholic-should-know/nicene-creed/
Sure. So if we start at the beginning, we find the claim that the
Father created everything, which seems to leave little room for his >>>>>> son Jesus, who was supposed to have been involved in creation as well. >>>>>
I understand that it's largely non-Biblical (or at the least isn't
elaborated well there), but it's not that difficult a concept to
grasp.
If you grasped it, you wouldn't have put up the argument you just did
about the first part of the Nicene Creed.
Okay, what about this one: if Jesus is equal to the Father, why is he
so often portrayed in a subordinate role to the Father (is begotten
of, is sent by, sits at the right hand of)?
This is a good example of what I mean about trying to argue from
ignorance- you really need to put a bit of work into learning about a
topic before making claims about it. Do you really think that
theologians from Augustine through to the present day haven't
considered issues like this?
Here's a starting point for you on this particular issue. I've
deliberately picked a source that is Christian but not associated with
the Catholic Church.
https://www.biola.edu/blogs/good-book-blog/2015/subordination-of-god-the-son-to-the-father
That's now two goes you have had at things in the Nicene Creed that
"can be shown to be silly or non-sequiturs and so on, and can be
debunked with a little thought." Want to have another go? Just bear in
mind the '3 strikes and you're out' rule.
On 2026-06-30 2:59 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 18:02:51 -0400, Vincent Maycock<blink>
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 14:48:51 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 15:10:04 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
[rCa]
Catholic dogma has evolved over the years, hasn't it?
Of course it has. Way do you think we still have theologians ~2K years >>>> after the Church was established?
Why are they struggling with that?
Pretty much the same reasons as scientists are still trying to figure
out stuff about biology, cosmology and loads of other stuff.
And will we need a new Bible any
time soon that will reflect their progress?
Do we need a new version of Darwin's 'Origins' because of all the
stuff we have come to understand since it was written?
Are you really trying to equate the way evolutionary biologists treat >Darwin's "Origins" with how Christian theologians treat the Bible
(whichever version they venerate)?
How often do you think they cite Darwin in their work?
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 18:02:51 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 14:48:51 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 15:10:04 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
[a]
Catholic dogma has evolved over the years, hasn't it?
Of course it has. Way do you think we still have theologians ~2K years >>>after the Church was established?
Why are they struggling with that?
Pretty much the same reasons as scientists are still trying to figure
out stuff about biology, cosmology and loads of other stuff.
And will we need a new Bible any
time soon that will reflect their progress?
Do we need a new version of Darwin's 'Origins' because of all the
stuff we have come to understand since it was written?
So the triune nature of God is something else you don't understand.I don't find religion to be that complex a topic. Most of its claims >>>>>>>>can be shown to be silly or non-sequiturs and so on, and can be >>>>>>>>debunked with a little thought. That's the problem with accepting >>>>>>>>claims that are not empirically based.
OK, here's a link to the Nicene Creed which contains the core beliefs >>>>>>>of Christians. Would you care to pick one of them and debunk it?
https://www.loyolapress.com/catholic-resources/prayer/traditional-catholic-prayers/prayers-every-catholic-should-know/nicene-creed/
Sure. So if we start at the beginning, we find the claim that the >>>>>>Father created everything, which seems to leave little room for his >>>>>>son Jesus, who was supposed to have been involved in creation as well. >>>>>
I understand that it's largely non-Biblical (or at the least isn't >>>>elaborated well there), but it's not that difficult a concept to
grasp.
If you grasped it, you wouldn't have put up the argument you just did >>>about the first part of the Nicene Creed.
Okay, what about this one: if Jesus is equal to the Father, why is he
so often portrayed in a subordinate role to the Father (is begotten
of, is sent by, sits at the right hand of)?
This is a good example of what I mean about trying to argue from
ignorance- you really need to put a bit of work into learning about a
topic before making claims about it.
Do you really think that
theologians from Augustine through to the present day haven't
considered issues like this?
Here's a starting point for you on this particular issue. I've
deliberately picked a source that is Christian but not associated with
the Catholic Church.
https://www.biola.edu/blogs/good-book-blog/2015/subordination-of-god-the-son-to-the-father
That's now two goes you have had at things in the Nicene Creed that
"can be shown to be silly or non-sequiturs and so on, and can be
debunked with a little thought." Want to have another go? Just bear in
mind the '3 strikes and you're out' rule.
I find your ignorance of the tooth fairy's methods to be appalling.
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 14:47:35 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
I find your ignorance of the tooth fairy's methods to be appalling.
Bang goes another attempt at having an adult conversation :(
On Wed, 01 Jul 2026 16:44:56 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 14:47:35 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
I find your ignorance of the tooth fairy's methods to be appalling.
Bang goes another attempt at having an adult conversation :(
Oh, so you're bothered by the lack of reference to the other wee folk,
I see :-)
On Wed, 01 Jul 2026 18:26:51 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jul 2026 16:44:56 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 14:47:35 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
I find your ignorance of the tooth fairy's methods to be appalling.
Bang goes another attempt at having an adult conversation :(
Oh, so you're bothered by the lack of reference to the other wee folk,
I see :-)
Nah, just learned over the years that trying to have a sensible
discussion with someone who regards childish insults
as an acceptable
method of debate is a waste of time and I have too much other stuff
going on to waste time on it
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 70 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 38:13:14 |
| Calls: | 948 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,325 |
| Messages: | 280,561 |
