Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

G.K. Chesterton on Why Materialists, Not Theists, Are The Dogmatists

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The believers in miracles accept them (rightly or wrongly) because they have evidence for them. The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them. The open, obvious, democratic thing is to believe an old apple-woman when she bears testimony to a miracle, just as you believe an old apple-woman when she bears testimony to a murder. The plain, popular course is to trust the peasant’s word about the ghost exactly as far as you trust the peasant’s word about the landlord. Being a peasant he will probably have a great deal of healthy agnosticism about both.

Still you could fill the British Museum with evidence uttered by the peasant, and given in favour of the ghost. If it comes to human testimony there is a choking cataract of human testimony in favour of the supernatural. If you reject it, you can only mean one of two things. You reject the peasant’s story about the ghost either because the man is a peasant or because the story is a ghost story.

That is, you either deny the main principle of democracy, or you affirm the main principle of materialism — the abstract impossibility of miracle. You have a perfect right to do so; but in that case you are the dogmatist. It is we Christians who accept all actual evidence — it is you rationalists who refuse actual evidence being constrained to do so by your creed.

But I am not constrained by any creed in the matter, and looking impartially into certain miracles of mediaeval and modern times, I have come to the conclusion that they occurred. All argument against these plain facts is always argument in a circle. If I say, “Mediaeval documents attest certain miracles as much as they attest certain battles,” they answer, “But mediaevals were superstitious”; if I want to know in what they were superstitious, the only ultimate answer is that they believed in the miracles. If I say “a peasant saw a ghost,” I am told, “But peasants are so credulous.” If I ask, “Why credulous?” the only answer is — that they see ghosts.

Comments
Axel, I think you just derailed the thread! Happy New Year everybody!Alan Fox
December 31, 2012
December
12
Dec
31
31
2012
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT
Speaking about it to my wife one night, I said that gentleness was an absence of violence; to which, with immeasurably more insight, which was not unusual, she replied, 'Oh no. It's love.'Axel
December 30, 2012
December
12
Dec
30
30
2012
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT
I should add, though, that evil spirits are quite real, even though many so-called “educated” people scoff at the very notion of them. See here: Among the Many Counterfeits, a Case of Demonic Possession. Yes, vjt, I've never seen a ghost but twice an attempt was made to throttle me, hundreds of miles and several years apart (London and Edinburgh), the first time when I was on my bed, the second in it. It was enough for me to tense my neck-muscles to resist, what evidently, in those circumstances, had limited strength. Also, in the army in Malacca, when in bed, at the time, asleep, stretched out on my back, the full length of my body was physically raised about six to ten - as in pictures one sees of a conjuring trick, with someone supporting a person by their head, and another, by their feet (or is that hypnotism?). I just as swiftly became aware that whatever this entity was, it was intent on sodomizing me, so clenched my gluteal muscles, as I was later to tense my neck muscles, to timely effect, thus thwarting the perverse designs of that priapic, phantom limbo-dancer. In Malaysia, we didn't wear pyjamas - not sure we did in Germany; certainly not jackets. But also, in Malaysia we just slept with a single sheet over us. I suspect it was a ghost, not a demon. When my nephew, as a fourteen-year old, was asked by a ghost in a monk's garb, who seemed to have taken up residence in a former house my mother lived, what he was doing there, he retorted, 'I might ask you that.' Not in the least bit scared, yet, like me, not obvious cage-fighting material. People are scared of different things, aren't they? I remember an uncle of mine who had been in Palestine with a parachute regiment after WWII, remarking how a very good boxer, he was driving with, was terrified of shells, etc. Quite a healthy fear, I expect, but arguably not as healthy as a blithe trust in Providence, whatever your fate. Anyway, I suspect all three of those experiences I mentioned were of ghostly provenance - we've had poltergeists playing up, to - but I was really struck by one angelic and two demonic experiences. You know, demons are fallen angels, and as such, 'pure' spirits, although able to assume just about any appearance I would think. I woke up in the night, to see a dull glow moving from my direction in the bed over my late wife's body (presumably having tried to enter my soul), and was struck by two things: one that it was a dull glow, as described in a TV programme by someone who'd witnessed a similar glow ascending a staircase in a notoriously-haunted house; the one I saw was a dirty yellow, as in an oil slick, and no bigger than a fist. I don't remember if the woman in the TV programme mentioned the colour, though I suspect she did. And secondly, that, also similarly, it moved in a strikingly straight line. Well, it would be obvious ascending a staircase, but not so much moving across a bed. Then I remembered how the prophet Ezekiel had described (good) angels he saw in a vision moving in a straight line, and it occurred to me that the reason why it was striking to us, is that in our experience, most living creature have limbs, and thus, when we see other people walking, we automatically factor in the slight rising and falling of the person's body with each foot-fall, as well as the slight swaying from side to side, and the slight deceleration and acceleration, with each foot-fall. So, to us, they are 'walking in a straight line'. It is said that we see supernatural visions through the filter of our own cultural heritage. Be that as it may, Christian scripture sometimes depicts the Devil as a dragon, and one night, evidently in some kind of dream, I was suddenly made aware of a great dragon swooping down on me. I started frantically casting about in my mind, whether to call out to St Michael, the archangel and leader of the heavenly army, or St Joseph, terror of demons. But I very soon ran out of time, so I just bellowed out in panic, simultaneously waking up, 'Help!' The word hadn't left my mouth before relief from the dragon's attention came. He disappeared instantly. I felt sure I must have woken up my wife and people in neighbouring flats, but I was evidently shouting 'in the spirit', only. It tallied with a similar response to a supernatural horror of a lad in my billet in a regiment in Germany. No one heard a word, all of us remaining blissfully asleep. Had I been a Protestant, I expect I'd have just yelled out, 'Jesus help me!', but in any case, my heavenly rescuer must have known what an idiot I am, so dispensed with the formalities. As I wrote that, I sensed my late wife's presence in her armchair behind me, endorsing their assessment. God does have a sense of humour. The good angelic experience was also strange. Again, if there was a visual element to it, it was dwarfed by the tactile element. I did see a small, very fleeting flash of light, but not such as I would ordinarily have taken notice of, thinking it a trick of the light, or optical illusion, like 'seeing stars'. A young lad at the time, I was returning to a boarding house I was staying at in Reading, and saw our landlady trying to catch her cat; she was a lovely lady, but pretty neurotic and seemed to be conveying it to the cat. With my customary presumption, I thought I'd try to catch it. Well, to my surprise, instead of bolting off again, it stayed still and as I stooped down to pick it up, my lead forearm and hand felt suffused with an incredible gentleness. My landlady remarked how gently I'd picked the cat up, as well. Anyway, in case anyone wants to forward my name for canonisation on the basis of this latter experience, I'm still fighting a losing battle to stop hurling four-letter words, in moments of stress.Axel
December 30, 2012
December
12
Dec
30
30
2012
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT
Mr. Arrington, Is it possible to have an blog post about the different types of Atheism? Something like a family tree or flow chart? I am getting confused by people using the terms "naturalist", "Materialist", and "Atheist" and would like to be able to articulate these differences. Additionally, since ID is fighting a social battle (i.e. the Wikipedia post by KF) I think it would be important to distinguish between science and atheistic-materialism which is the main opponent of ID. Some type of exacting definitions would be of great help. What do you think?Steve_Gann
December 30, 2012
December
12
Dec
30
30
2012
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT
Axel, Thank you for your post. It is certainly true, as you point out, that the Old Testament prescribed capital punishment for witches, and condemned Saul for consulting with one. However, I would argue that the term "witch" in the Old Testament referred to someone who claimed to be in communion with spirits, rather than a person with magical powers, as many people in the late (not early) Middle Ages believed witches possessed. In Old Testament times, a witch would have promoted the cultic practices of pagan religions in that region - including child sacrifices. Capital punishment was a harsh but necessary way of getting rid of this evil, which was the worst form of child abuse. Here's the context: Deuteronomy 18.
9 When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. 10 Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, 11 or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. 12 Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD, and because of these detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you.
The early Church believed that the power of Satan had been broken through the death of Christ on the cross. Hence the lack of concern about witches' spells. I should add, though, that evil spirits are quite real, even though many so-called "educated" people scoff at the very notion of them. See here: Among the Many Counterfeits, a Case of Demonic Possession.vjtorley
December 30, 2012
December
12
Dec
30
30
2012
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT
A review of the key quote in the OP: "The Dangers of Quoting (Out)Dated Wisdom"LarTanner
December 30, 2012
December
12
Dec
30
30
2012
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT
Absolutely LarTanner- a designer could just as easily designed a multiverse system, thereby allowing many tangents to play out, to see what happens, what changes. Also to see what changing constants would do and what changes each variation produced. Heck I say there could be multiple designers, some working together and some designing their own verse in the multiverse system. BTW anyone who accepts the theory of evolution already accepts miracles. The miracle of imagination and miracle mystery mutations...Joe
December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT
Axel@91,
And didn’t Chesterton realise to the full what you guys are up against in arguing with atheists: ‘When men stop believing in God they don’t believe in nothing; they believe in anything.’ ‘I’ll have a multiverse please… with just a dash of junk DNA and errr… oh, a wee dish of primordial soup for starters, if you please.’
Per the Chesterton quote in the OP, shouldn't we all keep an open mind about the multiverse, etc., just as we keep an open mind about levitating saints, holy folk who carry around their own severed heads, miracles, and so forth?LarTanner
December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT
Alan Fox:
But the point was that inorganic synthesis of urea disproved Vitalism as a hypothesis.
Cuz you say so? LoL! No, Alan the inorganic synthesis of urea did nothing to Vitalism. Nothing at all. Only a crank would say otherwise and here you are.Joe
December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT
Oh, and tell the chef, that for all his wizardry, that 'bombe Cambrienne' I had the other day, was absolutely atrocious. There were all sorts of 'foreign bodies' in it.Axel
December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT
KF, I keep wondering about these empty responses given by Darwinists to the overwhelming evidence for ID, "Exactly what is the payoff for dogmatic atheists?",,, Surely they can't be so blind! Do they think that if perhaps they lie to themselves enough maybe God will go away? Well He certainly is not going to 'go away', although He is also certainly big enough to let those who want nothing to do with Him have their way in the end and withdraw His presence from them permanently. i.e. Hell! “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell." ? C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorcebornagain77
December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT
And didn't Chesterton realise to the full what you guys are up against in arguing with atheists: 'When men stop believing in God they don't believe in nothing; they believe in anything.' 'I'll have a multiverse please... with just a dash of junk DNA and errr... oh, a wee dish of primordial soup for starters, if you please.'Axel
December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT
'prophets' is the wrong word in the first line of the penultimate paragraph. I believe it was patriarchs, judges, prophets, and perhaps relatives. Some signs, I believe, were offered gratuitously by the Angel of the Lord.Axel
December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT
PJ: I hear you, one of millions who too often are not listened to today. In my case, absent a miracle of guidance for my mom when she had nowhere left to turn to to deal with a life threatening chronic illness that was out of control, over 40 years ago, I would not be here today. Let us just say that "the steps of a good man are ordered by the Lord" is not a mere poetical flourish. KFkairosfocus
December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT
vjt, the references in the Old Testament, to mediums, and specifically, the Witch of Endor, who was consulted by Saul the day prior to his death on the battle-field (Samuel I: 28), indeed, the proscription against them under the Mosaic Law, render your assertion in your point 1) very puzzling to me. Although, clearly, Samuel's compliance with a medium's summons must have been authorised by God, for his own purposes. Likewise, Matthew 27:50-54 reads : “Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many." My impression is that those bodies of holy people seen in Jerusalem were spirits, ghosts, of the dead, rather than resurrected bodies, although I suppose it is arguable that God might have glorified their bodies to the degree that the body of Jesus, himself, was glorified, before his Ascension and full glorification. Remember his words to Mary Magdalene, when, after his Resurrection, she kissed his feet: 'Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.' I can't imagine they would have been zombie-like or even normal, living bodies, those risen, holy people were endowed with. What would happen to them then? Going back into the grave bodily? ----- 'As for the idea that God would condemn people to Hell for not believing in the face of insufficient evidence, the New Testament does not support this notion. It is only willful, obstinate unbelief which is punished, not honest doubt. Many prophets in the Old Testament were encouraged by God to ask for a sign from Him.' Absolutely agree. Why would our God ask for blind credulity? As James says in his letter: 'Even the devils believe and tremble.' However, I don't believe the point you make in your second, quoted sentence should be considered without reference to Christ's specific mission on earth with regard to his own incarnation; and to our own one, which is to demonstrate the same selfless love or charity, by a loyal commitment to himself and to his calling, in our treatment of others who are in need of one kind or another; as indicated in Christ's description of the Last Judgment, in Matthew 25. That commitment of faith seems to have been rather different from that required of us, today; albeit, this is perhaps less and less the case, with the rise of secular fundamentalism by courtesy of our Western governments, bought and paid for by the multinationals. For, to all appearances, Jesus would have been an eccentric, indigent, itinerant preacher, not merely shunned by the theocratic establishment, but demonised by them, to the extent that to be seen with him, could have incurred banishment from the Synagogue; a heavy social sanction in such a small theocratic society, irrespective of exigencies of personal piety. Today, there are a host of other deterrents to the faith, youngsters, particularly, being vulnerable to the faux, worldly wisdom of their unbelieving peers, who write the faith off as just superstition of a chauvinistic character, depending on what country and culture they grew up in, etc, etc. But, there are, of course, many more deterrents and means of trial. It's true, of course, that some prophets, we are told, were prompted to ask God for a sign, but there is one incident that I cannot help finding hilarious: when King Ahab, who gives the impression of being a very slobbish type, was invited by Isiah to ask for a sign, he declined, seemingly instructing Isiah in piety, declaring that he 'would not put God to the test!' Whereupon, unsurprisingly, Isiah asks him if he was not content with trying the patience of men, that he should try the patience of God, too!Axel
December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT
BA77: Well said. I think there is a need to pause, turn down rhetorical voltage and go back to the merits of fact and logic, including through scientific investigation not held captivity to a new a priori evolutionary materialist magisterium dressed in the holy lab coat. KFkairosfocus
December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT
Alan you state:
If you want scientific answers to scientific questions, ask a scientist. That’s what I do.
And therein lies your fault Alan for if you truly want scientific answers to scientific questions, what you must ultimately do is not 'ask a scientist' (argument from authority) as you think settles the matter, what a person must do is he truly wants scientific answers to scientific questions, is check and see if the scientific evidence confirms or disconfirms a certain position. This is exactly what I have done to overturn your claim that 'vitalism' is no longer a viable line of thought in science. P.S. Alan, your dogmatism is showing with this ad homenim "This is a site that is “serving the Intelligent Design community” according to the header. I have asked a few questions about ID to which there have been precious few intelligent responses. But I live in hope!" Thus you have both 'appealed to authority' and 'attacked the man' in that short post instead of offered ANY scientific evidence whatsoever in support of your position! It is clear by such shallow tactics on your part that you are not really concerned with finding the truth of the matter but only in clinging to your atheism no matter what the evidence may say to the contrary!bornagain77
December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT
EdwardTBabinski I would just like to thank you for taking the time to so eloquently offer your opinions on miracles etc. I have even visited your blog, such is my interest in what you have said thus far. And it is because of your undoubted depth of thought on this matter, and my experiences which are in stark contrast to yours, I feel I should respond. For many years, 38 to be exact, I didn't believe in miracles either, but during a stay at a Christian run drugs rehab, in 2006, that changed. To cut a long story short I gave my heart to Christ and what followed was one miracle after another. Now before you suggest that whatever it was I witnessed was brought about by 25 years of addiction, or due to the effects of 'cold turkey' I have to say that I had been completely clean for almost 3 weeks, was the healthiest I had ever been, both physically and mentally, and was well aware of all that was going on. The first thing to happen to me was being visited by Jesus. He came to me one night and talked with me. From that point on my life began to change, and all for the better. I then encountered many instances where I would be filled with various feelings, as I prayed, was prayed for, or read my bible, when I would be filled with a warm glow, or receive amazing insights, and on other occasions experienced things in the physical like lumps and scars from years of injecting disappearing before my very eyes. And that was only the beginning. Any way, I'm not going to go on, but simply wanted to let you know that the very things you don't believe all happened to me (as well as many other people I have spoken to over the years). And nothing I can say or do can ever change that. I have seen things, felt things, even heard things, that I can only attribute to the supernatural (Holy Spirit). I can't vouch for any of the things you have mentioned 'Allah, Brahma, Buddha, Zeus, Marduk, New Agers, Wiccans, tossing salt over one’s shoulder, keeping clear of the paths of black cats, UFOs, urban myths, chain letter threats, alien abductions, werewolves, vampires, elves, et al.”, as none of those things have revealed themselves to me, but I can vouch for Jesus Christ. Whether or not we like the idea, or the problems it's causes our intellect when we consider 'galaxies colliding' 'Cousin species becoming extinct' etc, it doesn't change what I have experienced. I suppose this would be a good opportunity for me to pug a book I have written about those things. See link below. Hope you one day discover this for yourself. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Design-for-Life-ebook/dp/B00A73ZDUC/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1356809974&sr=1-1PeterJ
December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT
EdwardTBabinski writes: “If supernaturalism is true based on common tales from common men and women, then what ISN’T true? Allah, Brahma, Buddha, Zeus, Marduk, New Agers, Wiccans, tossing salt over one’s shoulder, keeping clear of the paths of black cats, UFOs, urban myths, chain letter threats, alien abductions, werewolves, vampires, elves, et al.” Edward, you don’t seem to understand the point of the OP. Let me try to explain. Chesterton never says we must suspend our credulity and accept uncritically outlandish claims. At the other extreme is selective hyper-skepticism where we refuse to believe anything that does not fit comfortably within our preexisting worldview. Chesterton advocates for a balanced middle ground. He does not say we must always believe the old apple woman. He says we should credit her testimony regarding proposition A (supernatural events) to the same extent we would credit her testimony regarding proposition B (non-supernatural events). In other words, if she is generally credible, we should conclude that her testimony is positive evidence for either event and vice versa. The analysis does not end there. Just as a single witnesses’ testimony rarely conclusively establishes anything in court even if the witness is believed to be credible, the testimony of a single credible individual to an allegedly supernatural event does not necessarily establish the matter. It is only evidence, not conclusive apodictic proof.Barry Arrington
December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT
Hi everyone, Just a few quick comments. By the way, I'd like to wish you all a happy New Year. Stephen B (#66) Thanks very much for your response. After reading your defense of Fatima, I have to agree that you make some very telling points. Honestly, I'm not sure what to think. I'm troubled by (a) the similarities between Fatima and Heroldsbach, including the solar miracle witnessed by thousands at the latter; (b) the fact that a few people at Fatima didn't witness the miracle, even though 70,000 people did; (c) the fact that people witnessing the miracle saw quite different things, even though there was a substantial core of phenomena witnessed by nearly all people present; (iv) divergences in the seers' own accounts of what they saw; and (v) problems associated with the prophecies of Fatima. On the other hand, I'm impressed by (a) your point about the timing of the miracle being foretold in advance, down to the exact minute; (b) the inexplicable change in the weather that occurred at that very minute; (c) the inexplicable drying of the spectators' clothes; and (d) the fact that the miracle was witnessed from a distance of up to 40 kilometers, by people who weren't expecting a miracle. Upon reflection, I have to admit that there is much that hasn't been explained about Fatima, and perhaps I was mistaken in dismissing it at natural. However, I would be extremely wary of using this sign when arguing with a skeptic. There are too many awkward and troubling features about the events at Fatima that an intelligent non-believer could point to, and use to undermine the miracle, if he so wished; hence its apologetic value in the 21st century is very limited. Barry Arrington (#68) and Lar Tanner (#63) I quite understand your skepticism regarding the miracles attributed to St. Joseph of Cupertino, and your desire to see the relevant documentation. I did a bit of searching around on the Internet, and here's what I found out from a short pamphlet entitled, The Life of Saint Joseph of Cupertino by Fr. Christopher Shorrock O.F.M. Conv. (1985):
A number of biographies of St Joseph of Cupertino have been prepared in the past and give us extensive details of the extraordinary life of the saint. Of paramount importance are the thirteen volumes of the Process of Canonization preserved in the Vatican Archives. In this great literary work we find recounted the numerous testimonies of witnesses (including princes, cardinals, bishops and doctors) who knew St Joseph personally and in many cases were eyewitnesses to the wonderful events of his life. These episodes clearly reveal a man completely open to the transforming grace of God. These volumes, however, are not available in English and are not readily accessible. Therefore it is my intention, in producing this small pamphlet of the life of this great, yet little known, saint, to attempt to show how the hand of God clearly manifested itself in St Joseph’s life and at the same time lead us to the realization that with total openness to God’s grace we may be able to recognize all the possibilities presented in our own lives... With reference to levitation I have relied on an article found in the New Catholic Encyclopedia (Vol. 8 p. 683). In this article “levitation” is described as the suspension of a material body in the air without any visible support, in apparent opposition to the law of gravity. There seems to be little doubt concerning the fact of levitation, but it is not scientifically proved that this type of bodily suspension surpasses the psychological powers of nature. It is noted that the three possible causes of levitation are: God (directly or through the agency of angels), the devil (with God’s permission), or some force or power of nature as yet unknown. Among the numerous canonized saints who experienced levitation, the following are the most renowned: Ss Teresa of Avila, Joseph of Cupertino, Catherine of Siena, Phillip Neri, Peter Alcantara, Paul of the Cross, John Bosco, Peter Claver, and Gemma Galgani. It also pointed out that levitation is not admitted as one of the miracles required for the canonization of the saint, though it may be considered a testimony of the person’s heroic sanctity... Joseph was always truthful when people approached him for prayer, even when he saw an imminent danger in the lives of the people. To one woman who asked Joseph to pray for her two sons who were about to receive doctorate degrees, he replied that soon the doctors would be in heaven. The two sons died a few days later. He also predicted the deaths that Father Palma would become Bishop of Oria, Monsignor Roberti the bishop of Leuca, Monsignor Albergati the archbishop of Bologna, and Cardinal Emil Altieri, Pope... Another extraordinary event occurred on the vigil of Epiphany in 1655. Joseph told the superior, in confidence, that the Pope was dead. He recalled that while he was celebrating Mass, God had granted him the grace of seeing the Pope lying in his bed at Rome, breathing his last. As a result of this vision Joseph was able to offer the Mass for the repose of the soul of Pope Innocent X. Official news of the Pope’s death arrived at Fossombrone the next day. This was the second time that Joseph had seen the death of a Pope... Due to the many and astounding miracles, by which God glorified his servant after death, the Holy See directed that inquiries should be conducted regarding the virtuous life of Joseph of Cupertino. These inquiries began in those dioceses where Joseph had lived, namely: Osimo, Assisi, and Nardo (in which diocese was Cupertino).
So there you are. You'll have to go to the Vatican Archives if you want to find out more about the levitations. The pamphlet also provides many detailed examples of St. Joseph's levitations, and is well worth reading. Alan Fox (#77) You mention the origin of life scenario proposed by the late Dr. Robert Shapiro. You may not be aware that Shapiro's metabolism-first scenario was extensively critiqued by Leslie Orgel in his article, The Implausibility of Metabolic Cycles on the Prebiotic Earth (PLOS Biology, January 2008, Volume 6(1):e18), in which he highlighted the lack of experimental support for these scenarios, as well as their failure to address the fundamental problems relating to the origin of life. Here's a short quote from the conclusion:
...In view of the importance of the topic, it is essential to subject metabolist proposals to the same kind of detailed examination and criticism that has rightly been applied to genetic theories [29,30]. In the case of these latter theories, an appraisal of their plausibility can be based on a substantial body of experimental work. In the case of the former, because little experimental work has been attempted, appraisal must be based on chemical plausibility. Almost all proposals of hypothetical metabolic cycles have recognized that each of the steps involved must occur rapidly enough for the cycle to be useful in the time available for its operation. It is always assumed that this condition is met, but in no case have persuasive supporting arguments been presented... The most serious challenge to proponents of metabolic cycle theories — the problems presented by the lack of specificity of most nonenzymatic catalysts — has, in general, not been appreciated. If it has, it has been ignored. Theories of the origin of life based on metabolic cycles cannot be justified by the inadequacy of competing theories: they must stand on their own. The situation with respect to chemical cycles unrelated to those involved in contemporary metabolism is different. At least one well-established autocatalytic cycle, the core of the formose reaction, is understood reasonably well [1,18] and, as discussed previously, there is experimental support for the existence of one or two other simple cycles [2,3]... The prebiotic syntheses that have been investigated experimentally almost always lead to the formation of complex mixtures. Proposed polymer replication schemes are unlikely to succeed except with reasonably pure input monomers. No solution of the origin-of-life problem will be possible until the gap between the two kinds of chemistry is closed. Simplification of product mixtures through the self-organization of organic reaction sequences, whether cyclic or not, would help enormously, as would the discovery of very simple replicating polymers. However, solutions offered by supporters of geneticist or metabolist scenarios that are dependent on "if pigs could fly" hypothetical chemistry are unlikely to help.
bornagain77 (#71) You made some excellent points in response to Ed Babinski's objections regarding Hell. Thank you. Thanks also for the video links on mind-body influences and photosynthesis. Edward T. Babinski (#69, 70) Thank you for your comments. Regarding Hell: I would also like to add that (a) belief in visions has never been obligatory, even for Catholics; (b) although there have been Christians who held that most people go to Hell, this is not a point of Christian teaching, and there have been prominent saints who held a contrary view. You might find the following article interesting: The Population of Hell by Avery Cardinal Dulles. As for the idea that God would condemn people to Hell for not believing in the face of insufficient evidence, the New Testament does not support this notion. It is only willful, obstinate unbelief which is punished, not honest doubt. Many prophets in the Old Testament were encouraged by God to ask for a sign from Him. You ask whether belief in the supernatural would justify the burning of witches. Several quick points in reply: (i) belief in witchcraft, far from being part and parcel of the Christian tradition, emerged relatively late in the history of Christendom - indeed in earlier times the notion that witches existed was even regarded as a heresy; (ii) until well into the Middle Ages, Satan's sway and influence over earthly affairs was popularly held to have been drastically curtailed after Christ's saving death on the Cross, with the result that ordinary people simply didn't worry about attacks from the Devil; (iii) the European hysteria regarding witchcraft was almost entirely confined to a period of two centuries (1450-1650) in the 2000-year history of Christianity; (iv) in some countries, persecution of witches was especially savage, while in others (including Orthodox Russia and Catholic Spain, at a time when the Inquisition had a strong influence) it was virtually non-existent; (v) certain Catholic and Calvinist clerics were at the forefront of efforts to stamp out popular hysteria surrounding witches in the early 17th century; and (vi) while it is a cause for great shame that any witches were killed by Christians at all, the total number of victims (men as well as women) was probably in the neighborhood of 50,000 and certainly less than 100,000 - which is nowhere near the figure of nine million that is often repeated in anti-Catholic literature. Links of interest: European witchcraft (article in Wikipedia). Case Study: The European Witch-Hunts, c. 1450-1750 and Witch-Hunts Today by Gendercide Watch. Friedrich von Spee. Article in The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1912. Re St. Christina the Astonishing: I had heard of her feats, but I don't know how good the documentation is with regard to the miracles alleged on her behalf. The following online biography may be of interest to you: St. Christina the Astonishing by Cynthia Large. In her essay, Large makes the following observations:
The earliest account of the life of St. Christina the Astonishing comes to us courtesy of the 13th century Dominican, Thomas de Cantimpre[1], who wrote the lives of several holy men and women from the diocese of Liege. The tales of Christina's wild exploits might have been dismissed as an example of the medieval imagination run amok, were it not for the eyewitness account of Cardinal Jacques de Vitry, a man considered, then and now, to be a reliable and sober character... Christina of Liege has been a saint in popular tradition almost from the time of her death, although no formal beatification ever took place. She stands out from the canon, as Compass editor Tony Staley[5] points out, because her life, alone among the others, is not held up as an example to be followed. (Emphases mine - VJT.) Referances 1. "The Life of Christina the Astonishing," by Thomas de Cantimpre, translated with introduction and notes by Margot H. King, assisted by David Wiljer. ©1999 Peregrina Publishing Co. 5. Tony Staley, "The Compass," Catholic Diocese of Green Bay, 1825 Riverside Drive, P.O. Box 23825, Green Bay, WI 54305-3825 E-Mail: diocmail@gbdioc.org
See also this Wikipedia article: Christian the Astonishing . Unlike St. Joseph of Cupertino, St. Christina the Astonishing was never canonized by the Holy See, but by popular acclamation instead. It is fair to say that the latter procedure is much less rigorous than the former, in its fact-checking.vjtorley
December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT
Re your 81, Phil, I am not here as the pet science advocate. If you want scientific answers to scientific questions, ask a scientist. That's what I do. This is a site that is "serving the Intelligent Design community" according to the header. I have asked a few questions about ID to which there have been precious few intelligent responses. But I live in hope!Alan Fox
December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT
Alan Fox as to your assertion that Vitalism,,,
Vitalism is the doctrine, often advocated in the past but now rejected by mainstream science,[1] that "living organisms are fundamentally different from non-living entities because they contain some non-physical element or are governed by different principles than are inanimate things" - wikipedia
,,,is laid to rest as far as science is concerned, let me be the first to inform you of the resurrection of Vitalism: Non-local, beyond space and time, quantum entanglement/information (a quote unquote 'non-physical' element) is now found in molecular biology on a massive scale:
Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA - Elisabeth Rieper - short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/ Does DNA Have Telepathic Properties?-A Galaxy Insight - 2009 Excerpt: DNA has been found to have a bizarre ability to put itself together, even at a distance, when according to known science it shouldn't be able to.,,, The recognition of similar sequences in DNA’s chemical subunits, occurs in a way unrecognized by science. There is no known reason why the DNA is able to combine the way it does, and from a current theoretical standpoint this feat should be chemically impossible. http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/04/does-dna-have-t.html Physicists Discover Quantum Law of Protein Folding – February 22, 2011 Quantum mechanics finally explains why protein folding depends on temperature in such a strange way. Excerpt: Luo and Lo's equations amount to the first universal laws of protein folding. That’s the equivalent in biology to something like the thermodynamic laws in physics. http://www.technologyreview.com/view/423087/physicists-discover-quantum-law-of-protein/ Coherent Intrachain energy migration at room temperature - Elisabetta Collini & Gregory Scholes - University of Toronto - Science, 323, (2009), pp. 369-73 Excerpt: The authors conducted an experiment to observe quantum coherence dynamics in relation to energy transfer. The experiment, conducted at room temperature, examined chain conformations, such as those found in the proteins of living cells. Neighbouring molecules along the backbone of a protein chain were seen to have coherent energy transfer. Where this happens quantum decoherence (the underlying tendency to loss of coherence due to interaction with the environment) is able to be resisted, and the evolution of the system remains entangled as a single quantum state. http://www.scimednet.org/quantum-coherence-living-cells-and-protein/
The reason why quantum entanglement resurects vitalism back in biology is because,,,
Looking Beyond Space and Time to Cope With Quantum Theory – (Oct. 28, 2012) Excerpt: To derive their inequality, which sets up a measurement of entanglement between four particles, the researchers considered what behaviours are possible for four particles that are connected by influences that stay hidden and that travel at some arbitrary finite speed. Mathematically (and mind-bogglingly), these constraints define an 80-dimensional object. The testable hidden influence inequality is the boundary of the shadow this 80-dimensional shape casts in 44 dimensions. The researchers showed that quantum predictions can lie outside this boundary, which means they are going against one of the assumptions. Outside the boundary, either the influences can’t stay hidden, or they must have infinite speed.,,, The remaining option is to accept that (quantum) influences must be infinitely fast,,, “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” says Nicolas Gisin, Professor at the University of Geneva, Switzerland,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121028142217.htm
As to 'life' preceding material reality instead of simply (ahem) 'emerging' from it, well quantum mechanics even goes there to provide answers for us: The argument for God from consciousness can be framed like this:
1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality. 2. If consciousness is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality. 3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality. 4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality. Three intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_Fi50ljF5w_XyJHfmSIZsOcPFhgoAZ3PRc_ktY8cFo/edit
Perhaps Alan you would care to provide some counter evidence that consciousness emerges from a material basis instead of preceding a material basis, as quantum mechanics strongly indicates, so as to be 'scientific' instead of dogmatic??? Good luck with that endeavor Alan:
Logical Proofs of Infinite External Consciousness - January 18, 2012 Excerpt: (Proof # 2) If you believe in the theory of Quantum Mechanics, then you believe that conscious observation must be present to collapse a wave function. If consciousness did not exist prior to matter coming into existence, then it is impossible that matter could ever come into existence. Additionally, this rules out the possibility that consciousness is the result of quantum mechanical processes. Either consciousness existed before matter or QM is wrong, one or the other is indisputably true. http://www.libertariannews.org/2012/01/18/logical-proofs-of-infinite-external-consciousness/ Darwinian Psychologist David Barash Admits the Seeming Insolubility of Science's "Hardest Problem" Excerpt: 'But the hard problem of consciousness is so hard that I can't even imagine what kind of empirical findings would satisfactorily solve it. In fact, I don't even know what kind of discovery would get us to first base, not to mention a home run.' David Barash - Materialist/Atheist Darwinian Psychologist Neuroscientist: “The Most Seamless Illusions Ever Created” - April 2012 Excerpt: We have so much confidence in our materialist assumptions (which are assumptions, not facts) that something like free will is denied in principle. Maybe it doesn’t exist, but I don’t really know that. Either way, it doesn’t matter because if free will and consciousness are just an illusion, they are the most seamless illusions ever created. Film maker James Cameron wishes he had special effects that good. Matthew D. Lieberman - neuroscientist - materialist - UCLA professor Jerry Coyne, a Holy Warrior for Darwin - James Barham - April 20, 2012 Excerpt: Darwinists deny the objective existence of purpose, value, and meaning.,,,, (Yet) everyday human life as we experience it is saturated with purpose, value, and meaning. Therefore, to ordinary people -- as to most philosophers who have given the matter deep thought -- the reductionist claims of the Darwinists are absurd on their face. In fact, they are self-contradictory, and just plain silly. Every word that comes out of Jerry Coyne's mouth contradicts his official philosophy. Why? Because he presumably means something by what he says. Because he obviously values some things (Darwinism) and disvalues other things (religion). And because he manifestly has the purpose of convincing his readers that he is right and religious believers are wrong. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/04/jerry_coyne_a_h058811.html
Music and verse: Apocalypitca - Nothing Else Matters - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSMXMv0noY4 Romans 11:36 For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.bornagain77
December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT
Alan,
But the point was that inorganic synthesis of urea disproved Vitalism as a hypothesis.
The point is that the observation of urea synthesis is useless in understanding how the “body’s organic chemicals” are formed.Upright BiPed
December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT
...the synthesis of urea tells us nothing whatsoever of how the body produces a protein... But the point was that inorganic synthesis of urea disproved Vitalism as a hypothesis. Is this a lead in to semiotics? ;)Alan Fox
December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT
No need to google it Alan, the synthesis of urea tells us nothing whatsoever of how the body produces a protein (one of the "body's organic chemicals" as mentioned above).Upright BiPed
December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT
BA77:
So Alan, when faced with the unfathomed complexity of the simplest cell on earth, that drastically surpasses what was expected just a few decades ago, you simply ignore it as if it will go away?
Your mind-reading talents are somewhat limited, I'm afraid! To say we don't know how life got going on Earth today does not mean we may never know. I think the best chance we have in advancing our knowledge of life's origin is in the exploration of space. I recommend "Planetary Dreams" by the late Robert Shapiro for more on where that might lead.Alan Fox
December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT
It’s hard to know if this is just horrific wording, horrific logic, or both.
Consider a third possibility. You have misunderstood. Ed is referring to "Vitalism! LMGTFYAlan Fox
December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT
Prior to the development of the telescope and microscope and experimental sciences such as chemistry, there were loads of supernatural theories as to how nature worked. Some thought that the body’s organic chemicals required a miracle to form, but that was disproved when urea was formed via a chemical reaction using inorganic chemicals not found in living things.
It's hard to know if this is just horrific wording, horrific logic, or both. There are 117 elements on the Periodic Table. If compounds of these elements existing both inside and outside the body was to tell us anything of value, then we needn't look beyond the existence of water for that lesson. In any case, the synthesis of urea from those elements tells us absolutely nothing whatsoever of how a protein is made.Upright BiPed
December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT
As well Edward, it is very curious to note that it takes a infinite amount of information to give a complete description of a photon in its quantum wave state: Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a (photon) qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/duwell/DuwellPSA2K.pdf Quantum Computing – Stanford Encyclopedia Excerpt: Theoretically, a single qubit can store an infinite amount of information, yet when measured (and thus collapsing the Quantum Wave state) it yields only the classical result (0 or 1),,, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-quantcomp/#2.1 Single photons to soak up data: Excerpt: the orbital angular momentum of a photon can take on an infinite number of values. Since a photon can also exist in a superposition of these states, it could – in principle – be encoded with an infinite amount of information. http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/7201 The following experiment actually demonstrated that information can be encoded into a photon while it is in its quantum wave state, Ultra-Dense Optical Storage – on One Photon Excerpt: Researchers at the University of Rochester have made an optics breakthrough that allows them to encode an entire image’s worth of data into a photon, slow the image down for storage, and then retrieve the image intact.,,, Quantum mechanics dictates some strange things at that scale, so that bit of light could be thought of as both a particle and a wave. As a wave, it passed through all parts of the stencil at once, carrying the "shadow" of the UR with it. http://www.physorg.com/news88439430.html Moreover, the wave collapse of photons in this universe are found to be geometrically centered to each unique point of conscious observation in the universe: Centrality of Each Individual 'Conscious' Observer In The Universe and Christ’s Very Credible Reconciliation Of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics https://docs.google.com/document/d/17SDgYPHPcrl1XX39EXhaQzk7M0zmANKdYIetpZ-WB5Y/edit?hl=en_US Now, I find all the preceding evidence to be absolutely fascinating! Light is found in our experiments with special relativity to be ‘eternal’. As well, a photon, in its quantum wave state, is found to be mathematically defined as a ‘infinite-dimensional’ state, which ‘requires an infinite amount of information’ to describe it properly, can be encoded with information in its 'infinite dimensional' state, and this ‘infinite dimensional’ photon is found to collapse, instantaneously, and thus 'non-locally', to just a '1 or 0' state, out of a infinite number of possibilities that the photon could have collapsed to instead! Moreover, consciousness is found to precede the collapse of the wavefunction of the photon to its particle state. Moreover, a non-local, beyond space and time, cause is needed to explain the 'harvesting of energy' in photosynthesis. Energy that all other complex biological life on earth is ultimately dependent on. Now my question to materialistic atheists is this, "Exactly what ’cause’ has been postulated throughout history to be completely independent of any space-time constraints (eternal), as well as possessing infinite knowledge, so as to be the ‘sufficient cause’ to explain what we see in the quantum wave collapse of a photon and in the non-local quantum coherence of photosynthesis??? ,,,In my personal opinion, even though this is not hashed out in exhaustive detail yet, and regardless of what atheists may think, all this evidence is about as sweet as it can get in experimental science as to providing empirical proof that Almighty God created, and sustains all life in the universe.,,, John 1:1-5 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. Jeremy Camp – The Way (Official Music Video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q6o4sbndVEbornagain77
December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT
A few notes on the theistic implications of light itself: It is found that light is extremely fine tuned to the atmosphere, to biological molecules and to water, for life to exist: Extreme (1 in 10^24) Fine Tuning of Light for Life and Scientific Discovery - Richards, Gonzalez - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/7715887 Visible light is also incredibly fine-tuned for life to exist. Though visible light is only a tiny fraction of the total electromagnetic spectrum coming from the sun, it happens to be the "most permitted" portion of the sun's spectrum allowed to filter through the our atmosphere. All the other bands of electromagnetic radiation, directly surrounding visible light, happen to be harmful to organic molecules, and are almost completely absorbed by the atmosphere. The tiny amount of harmful UV radiation, which is not visible light, allowed to filter through the atmosphere is needed to keep various populations of single cell bacteria from over-populating the world (Ross; reasons.org). The size of light's wavelengths and the constraints on the size allowable for the protein molecules of organic life, also seem to be tailor-made for each other. This "tailor-made fit" allows photosynthesis, the miracle of sight, and many other things that are necessary for human life. These specific frequencies of light (that enable plants to manufacture food and astronomers to observe the cosmos) represent less than 1 trillionth of a trillionth (10^-24) of the universe's entire range of electromagnetic emissions. Like water, visible light also appears to be of optimal biological utility (M.Denton; W.Bradley; G.Gonzalez; J.Richards). Fine Tuning Of Light to the Atmosphere, to Biological Life, and to Water – graphs https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMTljaGh4MmdnOQ The extreme fine tuning of light for life is discussed further in the following video: Fine Tuning Of Universal Constants, Particularly Light – Walter Bradley – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4491552 As well, interestingly, it is in the 'thought experiment' of 'riding a light beam' that gave Einstein his breakthrough insight into special relativity: Albert Einstein - Special Relativity - Insight Into Eternity - 'thought experiment' video http://www.metacafe.com/w/6545941/ "I've just developed a new theory of eternity." Albert Einstein - The Einstein Factor - Reader's Digest "The laws of relativity have changed timeless existence from a theological claim to a physical reality. Light, you see, is outside of time, a fact of nature proven in thousands of experiments at hundreds of universities. I don’t pretend to know how tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday. But at the speed of light they actually and rigorously do. Time does not pass." Richard Swenson - More Than Meets The Eye, Chpt. 12 Light and Quantum Entanglement Reflect Some Characteristics Of God - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4102182 Moreover, light is found to be of a 'higher dimensional' nature: Please compare the similarity of the optical effect, noted at the 3:22 minute mark of the following video, when the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape around the direction of travel as a 'hypothetical' observer moves towards the ‘higher dimension’ of the speed of light, with the ‘light at the end of the tunnel’ reported in very many Near Death Experiences: (Of note: This following video was made by two Australian University Physics Professors with a supercomputer.) Approaching The Speed Of Light - Optical Effects - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5733303/ Amazing --- light filmed at 1,000,000,000,000 Frames/Second! - video (so fast that at 9:00 Minute mark of video the 'higher dimensional' time dilation effect of relativity is caught on film) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoHeWgLvlXIbornagain77
December 29, 2012
December
12
Dec
29
29
2012
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply