Taking on "the best." Dr. Greg Bahnsen critiqued. ATTN: Jerud1711
Offline Jerud1711 believes that Dr. Greg Bahnsen is one of the best presuppositionalists around. Since I've never been one to shy away from a good philosophical beat down, I've decided to take him on. Unfortunately, Jerud didn't provide me with any specific material, so I just picked the first thing that came up from the footnotes on his Wiki page. Jerud, if you have a link to anything better than this, please let me know. Anyway, on with the show:
From: http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa001.htm
It is one of those embarrassing historical ironies that modern science could not have arisen except in the atmosphere of a Christian world-and-life view. Nevertheless, the scientific community today persists in playing the prodigal by assuming an antagonistic stance against the Christianity of divine revelation. Hypnotized by Darwin's evolutionary scheme and enchanted with the products of scientific technology, modern man has granted science a secularized godship and bows before it in fetish idolatry.
Fallacy: Because the world was Christian, Christianity caused science.
Fallacy: Even if religion was fertile ground for the development of the scientific method, it in no way demonstrates that religion and science are compatible.
Fallacy: Equating religious worship with scientific inquiry. How many times has this been addressed on the site? A hundred?
The pitting of science against revelation is certainly odd. For, a certain state of affairs is needed for the scientific endeavor to be meaningful or fruitful. The scientist must believe that the state of affairs is conducive to science, or he would not venture into the scientific enterprise. He must believe that there is a world of things and processes that can be known, and that he himself sustains a relationship to this world that allows him to know these objects and events. But then, what reason can the scientist give for his belief that the state of affairs is actually conducive to science? Why is the world such as it is and not otherwise?
Oh, wow. Imagine that! A presuppositionalist drumming up the same tired old argument: Science relies on faith just as much as religion. Nevermind that The Problem of Induction is Not Really A Problem. This argument falls under its own weight. In maintaining that reason and faith are on equal footing, Dr. Bahnsen has implicitly sneaked a fallacy into his argument. If two things are both possible, they are both equally possible.
In examining faith and reason, we can come from two sides. In retrospect, we can observe that EVERY SINGLE TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCE EVER came from the scientific method, while exactly ZERO technological advances came from revealed knowledge. From a strictly philosophical point of view, we can observe that the axiom of identity, which is fundamentally necessary for the existence of any knowledge whatsoever, leads irrevocably to deductive logic, which is 100% certain. Since probability is math, which is also certain, we have a way to link inductive observations to deductive probability. When probabilities begin to approach one divided by a number larger than the number of atoms in the universe, it becomes rather nonsensical to suggest that two possibilities are equally rational to believe.
Of course, there is always the brain in a vat argument. It's true that any one of us can never be sure that we are not a brain in a vat, and that everything we perceive is an illusion. However, this doesn't negate the ridiculous nature of the proposition that we ought to believe that we're a brain in a vat. There's simply no evidence. Even if it's true, we are trapped in the illusion just as irrevocably as we are trapped by the laws of nature if indeed this reality is true. Furthermore, if we are a brain in a vat, all of our supposed knowledge of God (through revelation or otherwise) would be just as false as our supposed knowledge of the material universe.
In short, whether we assume the reality of nature or not, God belief stands on the flimsiest of legs, if it stands at all. Science, according to all standards that appear to be monumentally probable, is the only way to obtain knowledge of the only thing that has any remote probability of being real.
To those who still insist on the faith argument, I say, enjoy your solipsism. Every time that you disregard it (which is to say, in every case except when you're trying to justify your god) I will laugh at your hypocrisy.
Here the scientist, who depends on the self-sufficiency of his logico-empirical procedures, is in a predicament. His response is usually to make various hypotheses about the world and then point to the beneficial results that flow from such hypotheses; he gives, can give, no reason for those hypotheses -- they just are, because they work. If pressed, or if he is philosophically inclined, he may even go so far as to say that his "working hypotheses" have no reason unless it be "chance."
Um... that isn't anything like what I said, is it? I said that there are two choices: Solipsism vs. Empiricism. What I didn't mention is that it's strange that a person with Doctor before their name could miss the obvious difference between axiomatic truth and derived truth. Axioms precede proof because they are proved by retortion. This is not to say that they are without justification. It is to say that their justification is that it can be no other way.
In other words, the consistent naturalistic scientist seems to hold to an irrational set of beliefs about the state of affairs simply in order that his "rational" scientific endeavor may get off the ground. It is rather obvious that prior to any scientific endeavor we must begin either from speculation (about "chance" hypotheses) or from revelation. The Scriptures (of the one Person who knows) reveal how it is that this world, and man in it, are such as to make scientific endeavor meaningful. The state of affairs that exists is due to the creation and providence of the sovereign God. If science (so-called) could actually refute the truths of Scripture, then there would be no actual basis for science at all. The desire of the scientific community to pit its enterprise and conclusions against Christian revelation is ultimately suicidal.
Talk about jumping to conclusions! First, this doctor is bafflingly ignorant of basic ontology. Science is not something that man invented. It is something he discovered. The difference is crucial, for the correct use of the word destroys his argument out of the gate. Science is nothing more and nothing less than the description of how we learn about the material universe. It is like logic in this sense. Man did not invent logic. He identified it.
I know... Someone's going to say, "But you're just saying that. You're not justifying it."
I am justifying it, but you're not seeing it because you don't understand what I said a minute ago about axiomatic truth. Since axioms must be true -- because there's no other alternative -- science must be the only way to gain knowledge of the material universe. Science follows from axioms. That is, deductive logic follows from axioms, and the process of science is nothing more and nothing less than using deductive truth applied to empirical observations.
Consider an experiment in which a scientist studies a particular species of bird, attempting to discover its place in the phylogenic tree. He takes a random sample of all of the known populations of the bird, and takes DNA samples from each. According to the laws of probability (deductive!!) the chances that a false conclusion will be derived (assuming that his protocols are correct and his math accurate) are 1:10^10. This is very certain, indeed, but he will not be the only scientist examining his work. Hundreds of scientists from his discipline, and probably from other related ones, will pore over his work, searching for errors. Many of them will attempt to reproduce the same results by running the exact same test. If two tests come up with a 1:10^10 probability of being in error, how dense do you have to be to realize that science has discovered an objective truth?
Again, it is deductively true that given a number of alternatives, if we eliminate all but one, the one that is left must be true. Science is the practice of trying to achieve this state. Granted, it doesn't always achieve such a happy state, but often it does. When it does not, it is not grasping in the dark. It is making its best educated guess based on all the available data. This guess has a statistical probability of being correct, even taking into account the possibility of incomplete data.
The antagonism between science and Scripture historically came to a head in the question of origins. The Christian asserts that the world is conducive to the scientific task precisely because God created it that way. (And this creation is revealed to be "nature," a completed work of God not subject to the continuing progressive development posited by evolutionary theory). Even within the Christian community, remnants of this bitter confrontation are still evident in the dispute between those who hold to a "mature" (completed) creation, and those well-meaning scientists and theologians who would accommodate to the "science-in-vogue" by holding to "theistic evolution." Yet, it must be remembered, the non-Christian naturalistic scientist considers the "fact" of evolution as the supreme case against the Bible.
Wow. As usual, I'm feeling very let down by this so-called "Master Debater." Any second now, he's going to assert that even though the OVERWHELMING PROBABILITY is that science is true, his unproven claim about an undefined being who, in some undefined way, did everything that science has explained, only in a different way... one that defies scientific explanation... is true.
Despite the enthusiasms of modern science in pursuing study and research on the "origin of life," it must be recognized that all questions of origins fall outside the realm of empirical science! The methodology of science is simply not equipped to deal with events that are neither recurring or repeatable under experimental control. In the matter of origins, where the scientist can neither observe nor experiment, one is left to depend either on guesswork speculation or infallible revelation. The choice should be simple; for the Christian, it is.
Right.
Science is wrong because there's an outside chance that it might be. Christianity is right because... um...
For a doctor, this guy knows very little about science. The whole reason that science requires years of schooling is that it usually requires more knowledge than what the naked eye can provide. Apparently, Dr. Bahnsen would have us believe that anything which cannot be directly observed is completely unknown. That being the case, I would encourage him to never take an antibiotic when he is sick, for antibiotics are designed through the manipulation of genes, which, I'm afraid, are far too small to see with the naked eye.
If Dr. Bahnsen is willing to admit that antibiotics work, I will hold him to the admission that the same process of inference which allows us to create the medicine that keeps him alive through a staph infection also allows us to be equally certain about the common descent of all life on earth.
Naturalistic science will usually retort that examination of present materials and processes enables us to extrapolate backwards so as to determine what must have occurred. But here again, forsaking his own basic methods, the scientist is speculating (not observing) on the course of historical development; he assumes (but cannot show experimentally) that not only is nature uniform now but always has been, that processes seen today have always worked as they do now. (The "theistic evolutionist" likewise assumes that today's processes must be basically similar to God's creative activities. This, in effect, is to say that creation was "immature," that God did not finish his creative work at a point in the past.) To pretend to answer questions about origins by extrapolating the observable present into the unobservable past is to reason in a circle; it is to forsake the proper descriptive role of science and to make it an arbitrary determiner of the past instead.
We're starting to repeat ourselves now. Dr. Bahnsen is free to assume that things are not as they have always been. That assumption stands beside every other assumption for which there is ZERO evidence. We might as well say that the universe was created by celestial teapots or flying spaghetti monsters -- or for that matter, a God who killed himself in the process of creating the universe. If all hypotheses are equal, than believing in the Christian God is just as foolhardy as believing in science.
Still... I suspect Dr. Bahnsen will disagree...
The origin and nature of the universe depend upon the Triune God. The scientist cannot proceed without a prior belief (acknowledged or not) in the sovereign Creator. Obviously also, the doctrines of creation and providence as found in Scripture are mutually necessary; to believe the one is to believe the other. The scientist too must believe in the controlling providence of God over the processes of the creation, or else he wouldn't be a scientist.
Years ago, David Hume noted that the scientists proceed on a scientifically unfounded, yet critically essential belief in the uniformity of observable nature. Yet, he pointed out, there is no reason (beyond psychological habit) for the naturalistic scientist to expect the sun to come up tomorrow. Science as an autonomous self-contained discipline has no honest answer to Hume. But if science, properly conceived, subordinates itself to God's revelation, then it knows why the sun will come up for it knows that God providentially controls all the operations of his created universe in a regular and dependable fashion.
The scientist must presuppose a regulated universe, and in so doing he presupposes an ordered creation. Every scientist makes certain basic assumptions about reality and knowledge, consciously or otherwise; and these thoughts are religiously motivated: "That which is known of God is plainly seen in them, for God has revealed it to them. For since the creation of the world His unseen attributes, not only His infinite power but also His divine nature, have been perceived, being understood by the things created" (Romans 1:19-20).
What did I tell you? It's the Christian God. He's certain of it. You know how he's certain? Cause he is. Cause it's true.
First, why are providence and creation necessarily codependent? I just postulated that the act of creation might have killed God. Why is this not possible?
Second, if the scriptures are evidence for this Triune God, what justification does Dr. Bahnsen have for TRUSTING in inductive logic now, when he just threw it under the bus?
Third, there is a HUGE difference between a presupposition and an induction. A presupposition, as the name implies, presumes a fact to be true, and then fits the evidence to that fact. An induction results from an observation of the evidence and a probabilistic determination of the most likely conclusion. The reason scientists assume the uniformity of nature is that ALL EVIDENCE EVER SEEN SAYS THAT'S THE WAY IT IS. Based on the number of times that nature has not been uniform, we have a 100% certainty that our guess, based on the mathematical likelihood of the conclusion, is correct.
Wait... did I just say that we have 100% certainty that nature is uniform? No, I did not. I said that based on all of our evidence, we are 100% certain that the uniformity of nature is our best conclusion. Consider ten cookie jars, each containing fifty chocolate chip cookies. We open all ten, count the cookies, and then set about discovering what the likelihood is that all of the jars contain fifty chocolate chip cookies.
Does this sound ridiculous? Of course it is! That's because there is no evidence whatsoever that any conclusion is warranted except for the obvious conclusion -- they all contain fifty cookies. Based on the fact that we have first hand, empirical, falsifiable, testable, repeatable evidence of the fact, we can say that given all the known information, we are certain -- 100% certain -- that the best answer to the question is that there are fifty cookies in each jar.
The same is true of the uniformity of nature. Until we see any evidence whatsoever that there's even an outside chance of non-uniformity, we can be 100% certain that based on deductive probability, the uniformity of nature is the best guess.
It should be clear at this point what the relationship between science and Scripture properly is. The presupposition of any meaningful scientific endeavor is the truth of Christian theism as given in God's Word; if the world is not what Scripture says it is then science is not possible. The sovereign God controls all the operations of his creation, thus providing the uniformity we see in nature, a connection between the mind and the material world, a union of logic and facts, and standards of absolute truth.
The relation between science and Scripture is not one of synthesis between two tentative theories; rather, it must be one of subordination. If science is not subordinate of Scripture, then Scripture must be subordinate to science and science itself will be autonomous. If science is independent of revelation, then nature must be assumed to be self-sufficient and containing in itself the principles for its own interpretation. Thus God is either identified with nature (the error of pantheism) or is shoved out of the picture altogether (the practical result of deism). Either God is God, or science deifies itself.
The activity of science is never impartial; there is always a substructure of metaphysical or religiously motivated belief. If there were not, science would be futile, its feet firmly planted in mid-air. The naturalistic scientist claims to work with "the facts." Yet even to speak of "facts" is to make some metaphysical declaration concerning the existence of factuality itself. The only "honest" metaphysics for the philosopher who rejects God's revelation is an agnostic solipsism, an "I-don't-know-and-it-can't-be-known-ism." Yet, if there is one metaphysics besides Christianity that the scientist abhors, it is solipsism. But, on what basis can he discredit this "logical" position? What source of information can refute it?
Oh, to hell with it. We're rolling downhill. We're trampling anything in our path. We've decided to believe what we're going to believe, because we believe it, because it's true, because if it wasn't, then it wouldn't be, and it is, so damn the evidence. Praise be to Jesus.
The only basis, the only presupposition, that allows for factuality and the scientific enterprise is the truth of Scripture. Without the Bible, science has no order in nature to expect, and the scientist finds himself adrift between abstract timeless logic and pure ultimate potentiality - or "pure chance." The world of actuality is only an accident, and the "universe" (if there is such a thing) cannot be known since there is no known connection between sense experience and analytic thinking, no reason why irrational dreams are not as true as rational thought.
The scientist must believe that he confronts a system when he does his work, or else the work would be futile. That system is either the result of the purposeful plan of the sovereign God, or it is the reflection into the unknowable "universe" of the ordering mind of man - which in its turn is equally unknowable. If the scientist refuses to presuppose the truth of Scripture (which is actually an epistemological impossibility), he will have neither a true universe to investigate or any reason to suppose he has the ability to do so. The Bible provides the only possible presupposition for all thought and science.
We turn down a dark alley if we do not submit every discipline, every thought, to God's absolute authority. We must begin with Scripture and let it interpret the scientific enterprise. The Word of Christ the Lord must be given first place in everything. If we neglect to let Scripture govern every academic pursuit, we have fallen prey to the shifting sands of human opinion.
Are you getting this? Scripture is 100% true, because we can't be certain of anything, because we have to take everything on faith, because science is definitely not possible unless we can know things through revelation which aren't scientific because if they were they wouldn't be true since science doesn't, because just because the universe might not be uniform, it isn't, because that way what I'm saying is definitely true, even though since the universe isn't uniform, I might be living in a time warp in which everything I say comes out sounding like "A Very Special Charlie Brown Christmas."
Adam and Eve took the "modern" approach; they wanted to interpret the world apart from supernatural revelation. The question of what were the qualities and nature of a particular fruit and what effects from eating it might result, were "scientific" questions to be answered by independent research apart from the Word of an authoritative Lord. Why should we repeat their error? It should be obvious that if man, before his disabling fall into sin, needed God's supernatural revelation to interpret his world properly, how much more do we who live under the effects of sin! The methodology of Adam and Eve, being inspired by Satan, has come to be exalted and followed by all unrepentant sinners and is the substance of "science" as commonly conceived.
The only true science, the only science worthy of the name, proceeds from the truth of God's supernatural revelation to fulfill its divinely given task of subduing God's creation (Genesis 1:28). To attempt science apart from God's Word and authority is spiritual suicide for the effort itself and the scientist who attempts it. Man is never autonomous; he is always a creature dependent upon his Creator God. In science, as in philosophy, culture, or politics, "except the Lord build the house they labor in vain that built it" (Psalm 127:1).
Oh... and this snake talked to this naked woman once...
Greg Bahnsen, a junior at Westminster Theological Seminary is a graduate in philosophy from Westmont College(Santa Barbara), [1970-1971].
Remind me never to go to Westmont College.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
Offline Yeah... Bill was another one of those guys who could do incredibly complicated stuff and make it sound effortless and simple. His approach to modal jazz, while still reaching back to classic tunes, was brilliant. Like you say, it's apples and oranges, but on the other hand, there's nothing quite like the raw weirdness of Monk.
Oh, and Pineapple, I'm happy to admit to watching Rick Astley videos... He had smoking hot babes dancing around in skimpy outfits.
Embedding is disabled on this song, for some reason, but you have to watch it anyway. If it makes you happy to think of a pimply hormonal hambydammit getting his jollies from 80s girls dancing around in ripped jeans and miniskirts... so much the better for you, I suppose.
Oh, and that girl on the phone is hot stuff.
And no... Britney never did it for me. The Trailer Trash Chic look never turned me on. So yeah, that rules out Tiffany, too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnJm-xfLAMs
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
Offline Oh, and Pineapple, I'm happy to admit to watching Rick Astley videos... He had smoking hot babes dancing around in skimpy outfits.
Back in the 80's I was a program director and morning DJ. Adult Contemporary was the tag Billboard (Mag) gave out to the playlist we generally offered up as they underwent diversification....course, I liked to call it Adult Contempt around the station and it caught on 
Crooner Rick was a big request so this song brought back some fond and not-so-fond memories. Not quite a one-hit wonder, but damn close.
BTW, sorry for helping to diversify this thread.
- Login to post comments
Offline Holy, Christ pimples in the 80's? A job in the 80's? I was in diapers drinking from a bottle in the 80's.
am I the youngest person on the boards?
pimply hormonal hambydammit getting his jollies from 80s girls dancing around in ripped jeans and miniskirts.
Think how horny hormonal teens are with the new videos.
- Login to post comments
Offline Holy, Christ pimples in the 80's? A job in the 80's? I was in diapers drinking from a bottle in the 80's
am I the youngest person on the boards?
Did you forget to reveal that when I guessed your gender correctly, Pineapple ?
- Login to post comments
Offline There's people on here born in the '90s from what I can tell. I was aywhere from 5 - 15 depending on when in the '80s (born 1974.)
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
- Login to post comments
Offline http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZbOdgevxDE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TF_Ga-AspMw&feature=related
(be sure to watch this second one to see what I was talking about with Fripp's technique. He's the guy on the side playing like a fucking machine and not breaking a sweat.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sGgSCcYTxU&feature=related
Tony Levin hasn't aged in at least 30 years.
- Login to post comments
Offline I have to agree with pineapple that I never heard of any of them.
- Login to post comments
Offline Fallacy: Because the world was Christian, Christianity caused science.
Um, I know this will probably get shouted down since I'm not as funny as Hamby, but...
I'm not sure Mr. B's argument goes quite like that. He seemed to be saying something more along the lines of "only Christianity could give rise to science because the ideology has qualities XYZ", not "only Christianity could give rise to science because the world happened to be Christian when it arose". I grant that the argument is still bad when interpreted the former way, of course.
- Login to post comments
Offline Ctrl Y ,
Christianity, "the rage for power", had alot to do with the pre and present industrial age chaos mentality .... I rather prefer eastern philosophy ....
Without Xainity we'd still be in the dark ages ..... the greatest scientists are a product of xianity ..... OMG 
, ouch 
- Login to post comments
Offline FYI: a brief Youtube search, for prosperity I thought worthy .... 
Enjoy, Cry ..... all should know the eloquent, magestic, flipped "King Crimson" band. The line up varied. This 1969 L.P. release, we have Greg Lake (of ELP) vocals, and a Robert Fripp guitar. The album cover picture is nearly me !
"get pissed, please please......"
"Epitaph" (King Crimson)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sae8QlMeyOQ&feature=related
"From the album , "Court of the Crimson King". "Pics and video footage together to make an anti-war statement" - thanks, YouTube poster, VickieBurns2 ______________________________________
More: Here's guitarist Fripp, flippin' .... when a beginner!
Studio: 21st Century Schizoid Man
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndaaGsaaYbI
Live: 21st century schizoid man l
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-C4qsyodo4
From other CD's:
King Crimson - Happy with what you have to be happy with
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpC_DJ4F2Yg&feature=related
King Crimson The Great Deceiver (Bass)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV56fp9x85U&feature=related
(funky) King Crimson - The Race
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwVMWt69G7g&feature=related
Hamby, this one makes me think of you, for some mysterious reason ?
King Crimson - Mr. Bill
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-S0isdoaRpE&feature=related
________________________________________
Youtube, the innovator, flipped, ROBERT FRIPP. It can grow on ya! .... I didn't find much of his way LOUD electric scary metal jazz stuff, but he does that alot too ... many flavors...
Robert Fripp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o-FP0m_TNI&feature=related
Robert Fripp - VHS The Robert Fripp String Quintet (1994)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voN8lqkMBzA&feature=related
Frippertronics Demo (1979)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24uSgRy_h-Y
Robert Fripp - LD Guitar Hero Vol. II (1992)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jp5WKbIwkyo&feature=related
2 song here is wilder, Robert Fripp - Crafty Guitarists Pt1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G55eY8oD730&feature=related
Girl Tribute: Robert Fripp & Andy Summers - I Advance Masked
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTTHQgmpQII&feature=related
_________________________________________
Got a favorite King Crimson , or Robert Fripp ??? I like them guys ....
Robert Fripp & Adrian Belew also player together in King Crimson, as in Youtube.
Adrian Belew Demos Spider Jam
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttoEcPbmOs&feature=related
Adrian Belew
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z35EyUEkQCQ
_________________________________________
A cool new man on the metal jazz block is x "Megadeath" kid, Chris Poland and his new band "OHM" ....
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Chris+Poland&btnG=Google+Search
Thanks to all the players .... "Archangels" ! .... * 
*
- Login to post comments
Offline [ok well, whew... renaming the thread now]
SITAR WARS and other guitar journeys
(subtitle: Apples, Oranges, Pineapples & more)
[/renaming the thread now]
- Login to post comments
Offline "whew".... that will work .... I was thinking "wow" .... same thing ..... well similar.
- Login to post comments
Offline "Fruit Salad"
I thought of posting that but didn't want her to thump me!
- Login to post comments
Offline I think she is likely a screamer ! Well , I have my free will favorites .... my imagination .... okay theists, "gawed's imagination" .... whatever .... sheezzz, what ain't gawed ???
- Login to post comments
Offline I think she is likely a screamer !
Judging by that pic of hers she looks like she could be both a screamer AND a thumper..... of course, that isn't her in the photo.
(Take note, I have teeth, please not to knock them out Miss P.)
- Login to post comments
Offline Um, I know this will probably get shouted down since I'm not as funny as Hamby, but...
I'm not sure Mr. B's argument goes quite like that. He seemed to be saying something more along the lines of "only Christianity could give rise to science because the ideology has qualities XYZ", not "only Christianity could give rise to science because the world happened to be Christian when it arose". I grant that the argument is still bad when interpreted the former way, of course.
I'll keep my voice at a moderate volume. This won't hurt a bit. I promise.
His argument is unsupported no matter which way we interpret it, but I do think that he was saying that only Christianity could give rise to science. That was actually the argument I was responding to.
I suppose I could go back and clarify, but I didn't want to write a book. His argument fails several ways. First, science was discovered long before anyone had ever dreamed up the predecessors to Yahweh. Zoroaster was still a baby. Oh... and there's that pesky little WHOLE OTHER SIDE OF THE WORLD, where the ancient residents of modern day China had invented things like rockets and movable type -- all without the help of Jesus.
It fails philosophically, as well, and this is maybe where I confused you. Suppose that he is correct, and that the political climate, or culture of inquiry, or whatever, that was inherent in early Christianity made it possible for man to discover the scientific method. That doesn't mean that Christianity and Science are compatible. After all, it was the belief in the "Universal Man" that gave rise to the intellectualism that dispelled the idea of the Universal Man.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
Offline Notice how Hamby avoided my question on Britney Spears poster. This can only mean he does. Not only that, he whacked of to it while listening to Rick Astley.
You and your fantasies about Hamby. The girls keep saying he's a looker, but I haven't seen a picture yet. At this point, I'm assuming he looks like Fabio.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
Offline And I think my brother is straight. He did have a girlfriend.
Uh-huh.
Oh I'm just jerking your chain. Your brother can be as gay or straight as he likes.
Besides, I think it was a 'phase', he listens to Led Zepplin and all that and I bet he knows as much, if not more, than Hamby about music.
That's an insult for a younger person than I think Hamby is. The band from your area is inferior to the band from my area.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
Wow , thanks again Hamby. I had made a desk top reminder to go check that DR. Xain out, mentioned in that other thread. Now I'm not likely to even bother.....
I will be e-mailing this to the many xains in my address books. Hamby Nation Wide, Worldwide Penetration Communication Evolution.
One of the hardest working bands ever, thanks for your hard good work(s) Hamby
ZZ Top - I'm Bad, I'm Nationwide / The studio version is cleaner, but this fun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjiCa6iMnbo&feature=related
>>> I hope you like this,
KING CRIMSON "I talk to the wind"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUVFY1aWIuk
TO
Jerud1711
I recommend you and all get acquainted with world religion interpreter Allan Watts, and eastern philosophy. Lots online, Youtube ....
As cool Alan Watts wrote:
"The religion of 'Jesus' [ of the clan of buddha 'like' thinkers] was that he knew he was a son of God, and the phrase "son of " means "of the nature of," so that a son of God is an individual who realizes that he is, and always has been, one with God. "I and the Father are one." .......... and, "Let this mind be in you." that is to say, let the same kind of [rational] consciousness be in you that was in Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ knew he was God."
"Wake up" [said a buddha] and find out eventually who you also really are [ god ]. In our culture of course, they'll say you're crazy or you're blasphemous, and they'll either put you in jail or in the nut house (which is the same thing). But if you wake up in India and tell your friends and relations, "My goodness, I've just discovered that I'm God," they'll laugh and say, "Oh, congratulations, at last you found out." Allan Watts ~~~
Atheism Books.
Totally off topic, IAGAY, but you just gained a new special place in my heart for posting King Crimson. I'm one of two people I know that has pretty much their whole catalog on my Itunes.
Saw them twice. Loved them both times. Robert Fripp is God. There is No God but Fripp.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Amen , what a guy ! That Fripp can flipp, wild mystery weaver man ! .....
...... indeed , GAWEDLY !
...... them wacky religious folks, when will they ever learn the proper 'spelling' big G ?
Atheism Books.
Saw him solo once, in a hall that seated about two hundred. Nobody was farther than about fifty feet away from him. One of the most amazing things I've ever seen.
There is No God But Fripp, and Belew is his prophet.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Adrian Belew ! Early wild guitar synth nut ! .... "The Guitar as Orchestra" CD guy, etc .... Got me my Roland guitar synth , midi connected to my keyboards of course , lucky me .....
Atheism Books.
Ahemmm, Pat Metheny, Pat Metheny, Pat Metheny.
But anyway..... back to the topic.
Hamby, you ARE the man. I'm glad you had the patience to wade through all that and smack it down for us.
I clicked the link, read the first sentence; "It is one of those embarrassing historical ironies that modern science could not have arisen except in the atmosphere of a Christian world-and-life view.", smiled, prolly rolled me eye, shook me head (uhhh, that would be in near dizzying dis-belief), then hit esc to go back to your obliteration of doktor Bahnsens pathetic and deceptive diatribe.
Thought about having a word or ten with Jerud here but not just yet. Thanks again, Hamby!
Erggh..
I must thank you for the compliments, but sir, comparing Robert Fripp and Pat Metheny...well... um... Anyway, to each his own, but Pat Metheny? Really? Granted, they both can play really fast and accurately, but... Metheny?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Yeah, Metheny bores me to tears. Fripp on the other hand keeps me riveted for hours on end.
I've by no means listened to the entire Crimson discography, but there's not a dud amongst the several I have listened to. In the Court of the Crimson King, Starless and Bible Black, Red, and Discipline are all stand outs.
I see now what I did....my bad
as I wasn't comparing apples to oranges...hee-hee
I wasn't even trying to compare the two great guitarists.
Actually, at the time I was typing I was listening to the CD "Offramp" (and remembered the headphone smiley icon I had seen but never used before and well my headphones were on so without even thinking)...and was just adding my guitarist to yours but I see now how it came across.
OOPS! There are about six to eight guitarists I love and wouldn't trade any of them and yes Fripp and Metheny
are two of them )
Also, I think Pat does play with more than just accuracy...he is melodic and soulful and innovative all at the same time.
But a person must appreciate thematic jazz blended with all sorts of other stuff to really dig it. His keyboardist, Lyle Mays is amazing as well.
One thing I try very hard to avoid is musical light saber duels. I can't think of one thing about music that invalidates someone's like or dislike for a piece of music. If you want to talk about specific objective things, like "So and So is a better technical guitarist than So and So," you can do that, but when it comes to "I Like Metheny" or "I like Fripp," it's completely subjective.
Now, speaking as someone who played jazz for a living for most of a decade (a decade-ish ago), I can claim some knowledge of the subject. It's possible that I've just missed Metheny's soulful stuff, but to be honest, I lost interest in trying to find it after about the tenth song in a row that sounded brilliantly composed and fatally boring.
In a way, though, the Fripp-Metheny comparison is interesting, because both of them tend to use highly technical stuff to achieve accessible music. The difference of approach is like night and day, though. Fripp can play for twenty minutes, and unless you are paying really close attention, you might not notice that there are only a handful of players around who could even approximate what he's doing. He's a minimalist. Even King Crimson's stuff is minimalist, in the sense that each part by itself is relatively pattern based and simple. The complexity comes from the interaction of multiple simple parts (The double trio is the perfect example, a la Thrak).
Metheny, on the other hand, wows the technique geeks from the start. There's no doubt that you're listening to someone who practices his scales and arpeggios for thousands of hours, and there's no doubt that he works at finding complicated scales to play with. To my ear, however, I've always found Metheny to take the ass-backwards approach. He tries to take really complicated technique and make it into emotional music, while Fripp takes really emotional music, and uses whatever technique is necessary to get it done.
Speaking of King Crimson, I find that I go through phases with them. For a while, I was on a kick where all I wanted was stuff from Red and back. Other times, I'm really into the 80s technogeek Crimson. Back in high school, I went through an Emerson Lake and Palmer kick, so I have to admit, the Wetton and Balew versions of the band have always seemed more like Crimson to me. No matter how hard I try, the Greg Lake Crimson sounds like Robert Fripp playing with Emerson Lake and Palmer. (Yeah... I know... the styles are totally different. It's his voice.)
"The Power to Believe" was a really pleasant surprise to me. Not as good as Thrak, but they seemed to find some direction after a couple of live albums and some odd issues with musical limbo. It's good that they seem to have found their own musical relevance again. I hear they're going to be touring the U.S. soon. I'll be there.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I don't think I've heard of anyone mentioned in this topic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZbOdgevxDE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TF_Ga-AspMw&feature=related
(be sure to watch this second one to see what I was talking about with Fripp's technique. He's the guy on the side playing like a fucking machine and not breaking a sweat.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sGgSCcYTxU&feature=related
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Never understood the praise Bahnsen gets from theists and (occasionally) atheists. He uses the same meaningless, obscurantist language in his "arguments" as any other apologist. An articulate fuckwit is still a fuckwit.
Actual exchange that took place about three years ago -
ME: Hello... Mr. Fripp?
ROBERT FRIPP: Yes?
ME: I'm a huge fan. You're a very big inspiration.
ROBERT FRIPP: Oh. Thank you.
ME: May I have your autograph?
ROBERT FRIPP: No.
ME: *slinks away*
That is one thing that gets on my nerves - why do these asshats always try to use language to confuse the issue? Language should properly be used to make your ideas as clear as possible. Using "language tricks" is a sign of intellectual dishonesty.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
I think I'm too young. Those videos are older than I am.
I think I missed out on all these since I grew up in the 90's (born '85.) and was exposed to Soul Decision, backstreet boys, NSYNC, etc... ( And yes, I did have an N'SYNC poster in my room..) Odd thing is...so did my brother.
Newer Crimson from 2003:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_Hj0_7sJsY&feature=related
And then waaaaayyyy back to the beginning:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76BPfz2wKpg&feature=related
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I met Tony Levin back in the 90s at a Crimson show at the Hard Rock Cafe in New Orleans. He was really nice. We talked about Peter Gabriel and Warr Guitars and Chapman Sticks and composition techniques. He spent about fifteen minutes just chatting.
Fripp, on the other hand... not as nice. I knew better, so I didn't even try to talk to him.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Giving you a very nice justification for never having heard of them.
You can't help when you were born. Now that you know there's good music in the world...
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
You and I have jazz in common. When I was little and then a teen, I listened to all types of music but it was jazz that got me to learn music.
Going back to KC, you motivated me to dig out my 4-disc set, Frame by Frame V1. It is amazingly cool. Been a few months since I had this in my player and have been enjoying it over the last hour or so. I think Bruford is one of the three most underrated drummers of the 60's/70's. I also have "Discipline" and "Ladies of the Road" but that last one seems to be missing so I must've loaned it out.
I have heard other people say they find Metheny too boring also; guess you aren't alone in that. But I've never found him to be so. I do think he is at his best when complimented by Mays and the rest of PMG. But I even like "Secret Story", which was a complete oddity for Pat, nearly too emotional but composed and recorded shortly after his divorce and so understandable that it would be. You'd be surprised at some of Methenys work; some of it would be considered minimalist, especially the recent work with Brad Mehldau in 2006 and his solo CD "One Quiet Night" from '03.
I have an ELP disc, laying around here somehwhere (that I got as a gift) and yup I know what you mean about Lake's voice. I feel the same with other music combinations as well. If we morph over to juvey rock I would tell you that Van Halen only sounds like VH when Diamond Dave is behind the mic. People who are younger though and only know Sammy have a different view of course.
Who else do you like in jazz? Any traditional ?
If I see them live, I hold up a lighter and throw my underwear at them right?
And admit it, you had a Britney Spears poster.
http://www.dgmlive.com/tour.htm
Seeing them on the Power to Believe tour was the loudest show I've ever been to. Yes, louder than Motorhead.
Stood right in front of the Warr guitar. It was fucking menacing. I've said for a long time that Crimson are heavier than any metal band (and better than most of them). What the fuck they were doing opening for Tool I'll never understand. Should've been the other way around.
Then again, Tool have a strange habit of getting opening bands that are better than they are. King Crimson, Tomahawk, Melt Banana etc...
I will probably see Crimson on one of the New York dates.
The end.
When I'm on the board, I open youtube and listen to music videos.
My 'collection':
http://www.youtube.com/profile_favorites?p=r&user=Toastedpineapple&page=1
I don't think it's a matter of being "not nice". I've read a lot of interviews with him and seen him give speeches at shows and such. He just has a different way of looking at things. He's vehemently anti-celebrity worship, and he sees autographs as a means of this. The way I've heard him describe it, to him it would be like going up to an accountant or grocery store clerk and lavishing them with praise. He's just doing a job and he thinks celebrities should be treated exactly like anyone else you would pass by on the street.
Bruford's book, "When in Doubt, Roll," is a necessity for anyone who likes this kind of music.
Bill Bruford - When in Doubt, Roll (No. 6630298) by Bill Bruford (Paperback - May 1, 1988)
I agree that he is constantly overlooked for more flamboyant drummers like Terry Bozzio and Neil Peart. The thing that's so interesting about his style is that he manages to keep you grounded in the beat, but for your life, you can't figure out how. His sense of timing on fills is just bizarre, but it works beautifully. When he does get to "play out" it's an amazing thing to behold.
I don't think I've heard Secret Story. I would promise to search it out and listen to it, but I'd be lying. If it comes up, though, I'll give it longer than the average listen.
I have an incredible amount of respect for Keith Emerson. I played The Endless Enigma once, and I've got to tell you, that guy's got chops. His approach to Neo-Classicism is rock solid, and you gotta give the guy props for taking a compositional form that wasn't going anywhere and selling out Wembley Stadium. My major professor as an undergraduate studied with one of Alberto Ginastera's pupils. According to the story, Ginastera was duly impressed with one of ELPs songs, an adaptation of a Ginastera prelude, and told Emerson so at a concert in Argentina in the late 70s.
Having said that, I recognize that ELP's style is melodramatic and often grating on the ears. I can't say I listen to it a lot anymore, but when I'm in just the right mood, it does the trick.
I'm pretty much straight up traditional. I go from Miles Davis backwards. Actually, people who have heard me play say that my natural style is a cross between Bill Evans and Thelonious Monk. Lately, I think I have more New Orleans influence, but whatever.
I think "Kind of Blue" is the best jazz album ever recorded. Period. End of discussion.
I think Harry Connick Jr isn't given nearly enough credit. He's a great player, and does justice to standards. I like Art Blakey, Art Tatum (speaking of Arts...), Carmen McRea, Billy Holliday, Duke Ellington, Horace Silver, and that crowd. I think Keith Jarrett is a great pianist, but his humming along annoys me. I don't think Diana Krall is given enough credit as a continuation of the torch song legacy.
In general, free jazz bores me to tears. Most of the times I've been asked to play, it's ended up being a cluster fuck because "free jazz" is often synonymous with "I don't want to take the time to learn to play the changes."
I think the world would be ok if the Yellowjackets had kept their day jobs.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Exactly. I won't kid you. I got into rock bands for the chicks. I don't mind a little praise, especially when it's backstage after a show. I think Fripp is probably a better person than I am.
I agree that KC is a guitar band extraordinaire. The Thrak tour was amazing. Also, as much as I like Tool, and I do, I agree that they tend to overbook their openers. It makes me wonder if they don't have an overinflated sense of their own popularity.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Denial is a powerful thing.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
I love how this thread immediately deteriorated into musical celebration, given that Hamby obviously put the hurt on the apologist.
Well, that was a terribly bloody beating ... what's on for tea?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Notice how Hamby avoided my question on Britney Spears poster. This can only mean he does. Not only that, he whacked of to it while listening to Rick Astley.
And I think my brother is straight. He did have a girlfriend.
Besides, I think it was a 'phase', he listens to Led Zepplin and all that and I bet he knows as much, if not more, than Hamby about music.
This book looks very interesting. I may have to see if I can get a copy to read through my library network. I know what you're saying about flamboyant but I still like Peart. Not sure I personally could compare Peart to Bruford anymore than I could pair off Metheny-Fripp. Just too different for my ears.
Yeah, I don't really listen to ELP too much....sometimes I'll catch a song or two on my Sat dish music channels that are nice though.
Yes...must absolutely, positively, thoroughly agree 110 %.(almost typed in "when it has to be there overnight"
Kind of Blue is the best jazz album ever recorded.
I will say this though, Connick and Monk are marvelous but to me nowhere near the genius of Bill Evans. Bill is/was the man. Wish he could have lived longer. If I believed in a soul, I would've sold mine for a ticket to hear him live.
Love Duke and Billie and Keith is also a favorite but like you said the humming thing....bleeccch ! Also I know Keith was in the right but that whole court thing with Steely Dan really soured me to his way of thinking. Diana Krall= yuuuummmm.
Who ?