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: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 55:01:26 |
| Calls: | 1,101 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,339 |
| Messages: | 276,444 |
