2006
07.29

Bullet Stuck in the Barrel

I was shooting some of my newly reloaded ammo at the range the other night when one of the bullets failed to exit the barrel. I don’t know if I had a dud primer or if there just wasn’t any powder in it or what. I ended up taking a small block of wood and drilling a hole in it the diameter of the barrel and about 2 inches deep. I then dropped the barrel in the hole and clamped the block down to my workbench. I grabbed a metal drill bit extender rod that was about 10″ long and dropped it into the barrel until it hit the bullet. After much beating with a hammer on the end of the rod the bullet finally came out. It didn’t seem to damage the barrel at all so I guess everything’s fine. I found a thread here that gives some more info on how to remedy this situation if you run into it.

Add Comment »
2006
07.28

I prettified the buttons to make it look a little spiffier and squashed a big bug in the code that allows you to change the download directory for a certain feed. It’s getting insanely big though. 96KB is just total bloat-ware. The next release will fix some of those glaring holes in the UI like being able to cancel an in-progress download. Use the “Check for updates” as always to update automatically.

  • Get the source and binary here

Add Comment »
2006
07.27

Here is a good script for backing up a MySQL database nightly in a cron job. We use it here and run it from the root user’s cron job. It just keeps a rotating set of backups and shoots you an e-mail with the results each night. Before you install the script create however many days worth of backup files you want to keep. For instance if you want to always have 5 days worth of backups on hand, execute these commands as root:

# touch /root/mysql-nightly1.sql
# touch /root/mysql-nightly2.sql
# touch /root/mysql-nightly3.sql
# touch /root/mysql-nightly4.sql
# touch /root/mysql-nightly5.sql

Here is the script:

#!/bin/sh

##: Go home
cd /root

##: Keep five days of backups on hand
dumpfile=(`ls -1tr mysql-nightly?.sql`)
dbserver=’localhost’
dbadmin=’you@domain.com’

mysqldump --host=$dbserver --user=user --password=password 
 --all-databases > ${dumpfile[0]}
if [ $? -eq 0 ]; then
  echo "Successfully dumped MySql database from $dbserver."
   | mail -s "INFO: MYSQL DATABASE DUMPED" $dbadmin
else
  echo "Error dumping MySql database from $dbserver." 
   | mail -s "ALERT: ERROR DUMPING MYSQL" $dbadmin
fi

##: Restart the database server
/sbin/service mysqld restart

cd -

Here is the cron job entry:

18 21 * * * /root/backup-database.sh > /dev/null
Add Comment »
2006
07.27

I was flipping through the RSS feeds this morning checking out the new headlines when I came across this one: “Surfing the Web with nothing but brainwaves. Kiss your keyboard goodbye: Soon we’ll jack our brains directly into the Net – and that’s just the beginning“. That’s quite a sensational headline. The article by Chris Taylor makes some pretty bold claims that are worth scrutinizing. The mind/body connection is one of my favorite topics so I’ll hit the highlights here and give some responses.

“Someday, keyboards and computer mice will be remembered only as medieval-style torture devices for the wrists. All work – emails, spreadsheets, and Google searches – will be performed by mind control.”

That’s pretty much the thesis of the article. The pertinent question to me is: what does he mean by “mind control”? Let’s look at his first example.

“Nagle, a 26-year-old quadriplegic, was hooked up to a computer via an implant smaller than an aspirin that sits on top of his brain and reads electrical patterns. Using that technology, he learned how to move a cursor around a screen, play simple games, control a robotic arm, and even – couch potatoes, prepare to gasp in awe – turn his brain into a TV remote control.”

This is nothing new. It’s basically turning an electroencephalograph(EEG) into a controller rather than a recorder so that the electrical impulses coming from the brain trigger actions instead of just being recorded. It’s neat, but it no more qualifies as “mind control” than eating a sandwich does. Instead of an EEG controlling a robotic arm, your nerves are controling your real arm. What is being read is not your mind but the actions that result from mental events. By the time something is registered on an EEG, the mental event that caused that action in the brain has already taken place and what is being seen are the results.

“Nagle was able to accomplish all this because the brain has been greatly demystified in laboratories over the last decade or so. Researchers unlocked the brain patterns for thoughts that represent letters of the alphabet as early as 1999.”

Without knowing exactly what research he is referring to here, I can only assume that he is talking about something like this, where the brain is examined while alphabet exercises are performed by the subject. Again, this hardly qualifies as having “unlocked the brain patterns for thoughts that represent letters of the alphabet”. That makes it sound like you can look at an MRI scan and say “Ah, we see here that he is thinking about the letter Q.” That is absolutely not the case. What we have here is another example of the measurement of reactions to mental events. We are not seeing the mental events themselves, because mental events aren’t the type of things that can be directly measured.

Also, to say the brain has been greatly demystified is a monumental overstatement. At least Adam Keiper thinks so when he writes:

“What that etymological shift somewhat obscures, though, is that EEG is most assuredly not mind-reading. The waves of the EEG do not actually represent thoughts; they represent a sort of jumbled total of many different activities of many different neurons. Beyond that, there remains a great deal of mystery to the EEG. As James Madison University professor Joseph H. Spear recently pointed out in the journal Perspectives in Science, there remains a “fundamental uncertainty” in EEG research: “No one is quite certain as to what the EEG actually measures.” This mystery can be depressing for EEG researchers. Spear quotes a 1993 EEG textbook that laments the “malaise” and “signs of pessimism, fatigue, and resignation” that electroencephalographers evince because of the slow theoretical progress in their field.”

That paints a very different picture than what Chris Taylor says in his article. Taylor goes on to give some more examples of neurofeedback devices before laying this one out there:

“Brain-reading technology is improving rapidly. Last year, Sony took out a patent on a game system that beams data directly into the mind without implants. It uses a pulsed ultrasonic signal that induces sensory experiences such as smells, sounds and images.”

Sounds incredible, but what he forgot to mention was the fact that Sony took out this patent as an anticipatory business move. There is no device or prototype or even any research that Sony has done to back up it’s feasability. Here is a quote by a Sony spokeswoman about the patent:

“Elizabeth Boukis, spokeswoman for Sony Electronics, says the work is speculative. “There were not any experiments done,” she says. “This particular patent was a prophetic invention. It was based on an inspiration that this may someday be the direction that technology will take us.”"

And just to top it all off. The whopper:

“Controlling devices with the mind is just the beginning. Next, Wolf believes, is what he calls “network-enabled telepathy” – instant thought transfer. In other words, your thoughts will flow from your brain over the network right into someone else’s brain. If you think instant messaging is addictive, just wait for instant thinking.”

“The only issue, Wolf says, is making sure it’s consensual; that’s a problem likely to tax the minds of security experts.”

Exactly what would you be transferring? You can’t transfer thoughts. They are non-physical. I guess you could transfer the same type of data that you get from EEG readings, but what exactly would that represent? You can’t think a certain sentence in your head and then extract that sentence from the brain. The mind deals with content, not representation of content. When you think, you think of, or about something. You don’t think the letter A. You think about the letter A. Those two things are totally different.

See my previous post for more thoughts on this topic.

Add Comment »
2006
07.26

Dismals Canyon

My friend Matt told me about this place a while back and I thought I’d pass it along. Like he said, I don’t know why this place doesn’t get more play in Alabama. It’s up in Northwest Alabama about 40 minutes north of Sulligent. I had never heard of it before. I’d like to take the kids there one day. Here is the link and a writeup about it:

Dismals Canyon Website

Just your normal ’bama coolness. “Intentionally private, Dismals Canyon – in keeping with its pristine surroundings – offers a quiet and unspoiled oasis in Alabama’s last secret hiding place. A secluded wilderness filled with natural phenomena tucked deep within the foothills of the Appalachian Mountains.”

“NPSAs one of the finest examples of the ecological and geological features composing our Nation’s Natural History – Dismals Canyon was designated a “National Natural Landmark” in 1975 by the National Park Service – one of only 587 in the United States and its territories.”

“Dismals Canyon – located in Northwest Alabama – IS NOT a State Park or National Park. It’s an 85 acre Natural Conservatory privately owned and operated. Offering Romantic Cabins, Secluded Campsites, Hiking, swimming and more. Development has been designed for tranquility and serenity and does not include big concrete RV pads/parking, man-made swimming pools, or Goofy Golf Courses, etc. Recreation is exploration of the natural environment.”

“Your visit is a step back to the time when the earth was clean and the water was clear. Aside from the necessary clearing of the trails, the area is now – as it has been for centuries – completely natural.”

Add Comment »
2006
07.25

*Part I

“One of the conundrums that always bothered me about organized religion was that some people simply could not practice it (think tribes in the rain forest) and what would happen to them—weren’t they going to burn by default?”

Whether or not you believe this really depends on your theology. Specifically, what does your religion say about how you get saved. Catholocism would definitely require active practicing of it to be saved. Since the sacraments are pretty much required, specifically “Last Rites”, I don’t see how you could be saved withouth such participation.

Most orthodox protestant denominations of Christianity take the requirement for salvation directly from Christ himself. He says in John 3:14,15 “But even as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, so that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” There is nothing about the practice of any religion in that statement. If you believe that Jesus was the Son of God, that’s it. Without getting into too much theology, I’ll just say that I think it’s probably a safe bet to just take Jesus at his word. I’m on safe ground with that.

The question then becomes: What about people, like “tribes in the rain forest”, who will never know or hear about who Jesus is? This time we will have to get theological since this is a response to one of the claims of protestant orthodoxy directly. The Christian claim goes like this:

  1. Man exists in a natural state of rebellion against god (sin nature)
  2. Justice requires this sin to be paid for (judgement)
  3. Therefore, God judges the unbeliever based on his actions and adherence to God’s law (condemnation)
  4. But judges the believer using Jesus sinless life as a substitute to satisfy the law (salvation)

In this scenario, those who don’t hear about Jesus aren’t treated unjustly. They are under condemnation because they sinned, not because they don’t know who Jesus is. Jesus is the route of salvation for those who are already condemned of their own accord. Imagine for a moment that the 9/11 attackers had not died in the attacks and were all caught by police. They are swiftly found quilty by a jury and await sentencing. Now the judge in this case was merciful and wanted to take the punishment for the attackers on their behalf, but only if they repented of their actions before sentencing day. Two of them heard about his offer and accepted his substitutionary gift. One of the other attackers had heard about this also but said he would rather die than repent before this American infidel judge. The rest of the attackers didn’t hear about the judges offer. Now, you can see what is going on here. Where is the injustice? Their isn’t any injustice.

The problem in people’s mind is not so much about injustice though. We all know that if their is a God we are surely to be guilty before him. The problem people have is with God’s benevolence. We think that if God is loving, he wouldn’t send anyone to eternal punishment without a cut and dried chance to choose first. But we know that not everyone will have that chance, so this leads some to the belief in what is known as the “middle-knowledge” argument.

“This is when you enter the hazy area of excuses by which people are ’saved’ without knowingly or actively being saved. Since the Zulu nation has no idea the Holy Ghost is out and about, and Jesus died for their sins and so on, then they’re still okay with their own rituals and beliefs—no knowledge of Christ, no harm, no foul.”

Middle-knowledge is the view that God knows what the outcome of all conterfactuals will be and bases his election of those who are saved on that knowledge. A counterfactual is a proposition like “If Dave was a preacher instead of a System Administrator, his church would probably be empty.” Any time you think of a set of circumstances that might lead to a possible outcome, that is a counterfactual proposition. If God then knows the answer to the counterfactual proposition, “If Zulu tribe A in the rain forest were to hear about Jesus then ____ would happen.”, he would base his salvation of those individuals on what he knows the outcome to be. If he knows 4 people in the tribe would believe, he would save those 4 people.

“Which always sounded to me like cop-out BS.”

That’s because it is cop-out BS, but I wouldn’t put it so harshly. A lot of Christians adhere to some type of a middle-knowledge view not to win an argument, but because our sensibilities about God’s benevolence almost demand that we believe it. I’m sympathetic to this, but I just don’t think it’s necessary. God is just, which is demonstrated by his punishment of sin. He is also loving, which is demonstrated by Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. I don’t see a lack of universal availability of forgiveness as diminishing that benevolence at all.

“There are only grey lines in most ’modern’ religions…”

He’s exactly right. And that’s why religion has become so absurdly irrelevant in some areas of modern life. It makes a mockery of the sacrifices of the church fathers, reformers, and missionaries who died for a reason. Wishy-washy doctrine doesn’t get you killed. Doctrine gets you killed when it hits other people in the heart, and that doesn’t happen when their is no right or wrong and God is nothing but love. Anyway, more to come later.

P.S. – I know that some middle-knowledge proponents probably choked on their lunch when I gave the above explanation of it, but I just don’t want to get into the whole idea of how evangelism plays in to it and all that for now. I think it all boils down basically to how I described it anyway. I’m definitely open to other arguments though.

Add Comment »
2006
07.22

Show me a sysadmin that likes to do the same thing 10 times in a row by hand and I’ll show you the sweater I got from Tony Blair. So in that vain, here is a batch file you can run from your login scripts that will automatically configure desktop and laptop power profiles in windows. Why this isn’t included in Group Policy Management I do not know, but since every copy of Windows XP sp2 has the powercfg.exe program this should be close enough to a sure thing. If you need to tweak the settings just look here for an explanation of the switches.

Desktops

@echo off
cls
:Creates a desktop power profile

:QUERY
powercfg.exe /Q cust_desktop
IF NOT ERRORLEVEL 1 GOTO QUIT
IF ERRORLEVEL 1 GOTO DELETE

:DELETE
powercfg.exe /D OLDPROFILE

:CREATE
powercfg.exe /C cust_desktop

:ADJUST
powercfg.exe /X cust_desktop /monitor-timeout-ac 0
powercfg.exe /X cust_desktop /monitor-timeout-dc 0
powercfg.exe /X cust_desktop /disk-timeout-ac 0
powercfg.exe /X cust_desktop /disk-timeout-dc 0
powercfg.exe /X cust_desktop /standby-timeout-ac 0
powercfg.exe /X cust_desktop /standby-timeout-dc 0
powercfg.exe /X cust_desktop /hibernate-timeout-ac 0
powercfg.exe /X cust_desktop /hibernate-timeout-dc 0
powercfg.exe /X cust_desktop /processor-throttle-ac NONE
powercfg.exe /X cust_desktop /processor-throttle-dc NONE

:GLOBAL
powercfg.exe /G off /OPTION BATTERYICON
powercfg.exe /G off /OPTION RESUMEPASSWORD

:ACTIVATE
powercfg.exe /S cust_desktop

:QUIT
@cls
exit

Laptops

@echo off
cls
:Creates a laptop power profile

:QUERY
powercfg.exe /Q cust_laptop
IF NOT ERRORLEVEL 1 GOTO QUIT
IF ERRORLEVEL 1 GOTO DELETE

:DELETE
powercfg.exe /D OLDPROFILE

:CREATE
powercfg.exe /C cust_laptop

:ADJUST
powercfg.exe /X cust_laptop /monitor-timeout-ac 0
powercfg.exe /X cust_laptop /monitor-timeout-dc 15
powercfg.exe /X cust_laptop /disk-timeout-ac 0
powercfg.exe /X cust_laptop /disk-timeout-dc 30
powercfg.exe /X cust_laptop /standby-timeout-ac 0
powercfg.exe /X cust_laptop /standby-timeout-dc 0
powercfg.exe /X cust_laptop /hibernate-timeout-ac 0
powercfg.exe /X cust_laptop /hibernate-timeout-dc 0
powercfg.exe /X cust_laptop /processor-throttle-ac NONE
powercfg.exe /X cust_laptop /processor-throttle-dc NONE

:GLOBAL
powercfg.exe /G on /OPTION BATTERYICON
powercfg.exe /G off /OPTION RESUMEPASSWORD

:ACTIVATE
powercfg.exe /S cust_laptop

:QUIT
@cls
exit
Add Comment »
2006
07.22

The Lee Auto Prime Tool

I have just started loading my own range bullets. I shoot so much these days that I was pretty much forced to, to bring the cost down. You can buy .45 ACP cartridges for about $0.20/ea. or you can load them yourself for $0.10/ea. or less. That’s a no-brainer in my book. Any time you can cut the price of a hobby in half it’s showtime.

I had read on the internet about this little gizmo called the Auto Prime by Lee Precision. You basically just put all your primers in the tray of this thing and it has a pin that comes up and rams a primer into a cartridge with each pull of the handle. That means that you can sit their in front of the TV with a bucket of clean/decapped brass and prime all your cases. I used it for the first time tonight and it does just as advertised.

I’ve included some pics of it below. If you reload your own bullets you should grab one of these. They cost about $10 from Midway. It takes a little more time than doing it all on a progressive press but it’s much more reliable. There are no primer misfeeds to deal with. It also gets you out of the reloading dungeon for a while so you can watch TV with your wife while priming.

Auto Prime

Don’t blow yourself up please.
The whole thing is small enough to fit in your hand. It’s about as tall as a sharpie. Hold it at about a 45° angle pointing away from yourself. Remember that primers explode if mishandled. Don’t look into the shell when you are priming!

Shellplate and Tray

Don’t blow yourself up please.
You have to buy the appropriate shellplate to fit in the mouth of the tool based on what caliber you will be reloading. I load .45 ACP so I got the Lee #2 shellplate.

Handle

Don’t blow yourself up please.
The handle pushes a lever that forces the ram up through the shellplate. I had to grind the ram pin down a little bit because it was too tall to allow the primers to feed. Once I made that adjustment it worked like a charm.

Add Comment »
2006
07.20

The Scientific Method

There is a lot of talk about the scientific method these days and what does or doesn’t qualify as adhering to it. Much of the scientific “establishment” reject theories like Intelligent Design with claims that it is “not science”, or “outside the realm of science”. We can only assume when they say things like that, that they are speaking of it’s adherence to a common scientific method. I tried to find a good representation of the scientific method as an example to use. There are so many subtle variations of it that I eventually just went with the one on wikipedia. Here it is:

  1. Define the question
  2. Gather information and resources
  3. Form hypothesis
  4. Perform experiment(s) and collect data
  5. Analyze data
  6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypotheses
  7. Publish results

Does Intelligent Design theory fit into the above scientific method? Let’s see.

1. Define the question

Well, that seems easy enough. The question is “Can evolutionary processes account for the existence of irreducibly complex systems?” That was pretty painless. Step 2!

2. Gather information and resources

Well, that seems easy too. Our information and resources should start with published works about the evolution of complex systems such as humans, animals, plants, bacteria, etc. We should also gather information about statistical probabilities of certain evolutionary schema as well.

3. Form hypothesis

We already know what our hypothosis is going to be. That “Evolutionary processes can’t account for the existence of irreducibly complex systems.”

4. Perform experiment(s) and collect data

This is the step that causes so many scientists to get their panties in a wad with regards to ID. I’m not sure what the problem is though. Since we are trying to prove a negative hypothosis our experiments would be the same as those proving the positive inverse of our hypothesis. But in this case we would interperet a failure of the experiments in question to be an affirmation of our hypothosis. I just don’t see what is so hard to grasp about that.

5. Anazlyze data

Again, not a hard concept. We look at the results of our experiments involving attempts to produce irreducibly complex systems and determine what the outcome was. We also look at all the variables and try to determine what improvements can be done to the experiment to make it more likely to produce irreducibly complex systems.

7. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypotheses

When we look at the results in as objective a fashion as possible, what do we see? Is there a clear indication that it might be possible given further experimentation? Do all of our experiments fail miserably? Is there any indication through the failure of the experiments that might lead us to other naturalistic scenarios that we could test?

8. Publish results

And here is another sticking point with the way things are now. I’m sure many ID scientists would love to get there papers/results published but that’s easier said than done. If you need an example of the difficulties of getting peer review for ID just check out Michael Behe’s ordeal here.

Now all that seems like it would be very straightforward to most people but somehow that is considered “not science” by the science establishment. That sounds very intellectually dishonest to me. Especially when you consider the miserable failure of the scientific method to produce any kind of consistent results in areas like global warming research. We hear one thing one day and a different thing the next. I like this quote from wikipedia’s entry on Paul Feyerabend:

Ahoy, me arty!
“Starting from the assumption that an a historical universal scientific method does not exist, Feyerabend argued that science does not deserve its privileged status in western society. Since scientific points of view do not arise from using a universal method which guarantees high quality conclusions, he thought that there is no justification for valuing scientific claims over claims by other ideologies like religions. Feyerabend also argued that scientific accomplishments such as the moon landings are no compelling reason to give science a special status. In his opinion, it is not fair to use scientific assumptions about which problems are worth solving in order to judge the merit of other ideologies. Additionally, success by scientists has traditionally involved non-scientific elements, such as inspiration from mythical or religious sources.” –Wikipedia, Feyerabend, 2006

Another thing you hear a lot about is disprovability. This is the idea that a hypothesis must be able to be disproved in order to qualify as a scientifically valid hypothesis. In other words, if it can’t be disproved, then it can’t be tested in any meaningful way. I’m not sure why this is brought up by naturalists as a defense for the scientific validity of evolution over ID. It is the naturalist who says that no other explanation is possible. That means it is non-disprovable by default because their can be no other acceptable answer. ID on the other hand is very open minded. All it takes to disprove ID is one experiment that shows evolution can do the job on it’s own.

My conclusion is that people need to stop claiming that ID is not science. The scientific method as we currently know it is not a bad way to do science as long as you actually stick to the method and don’t start making up other rules that barr entry to it. We also need to realize that there can’t be one single method for all of science. Science has many different disciplines and a method that works great for chemistry might be horribly inadequate for sociology.

Add Comment »
2006
07.19

On Hell – A Response

I usually don’t respond to stuff like this, but I think this guy makes some valid points amidst the errors and vulgarity. What strikes me is how predictable thoughts like his are, given what has been going on in the church for the last “x” number of years. When you get wishy-washy and start blurring your theology like the broader Christian church has, it eventually doesn’t make sense anymore. I want to take the claims one at the time. I’ll ignore the “ranty” parts and just focus on the claims made.

“You see, Hell is not just ’a place’ or even ’a thing.’ It’s an entire belief system in and of itself. There can be no good without evil, light without darkness.”

He’s right. Hell isn’t a place or a thing. It’s non-physical just as heaven is. Hell is just a place of non-corporeal existence that is cut off from the presence of God. It’s not a “belief system” either. I am pretty sure you require more than one belief before you can call it a belief system. The other part about no good without evil is kind of a misappropriation of principles. You have to be careful about applying too many language constructs to base metaphysical ideas. If there was no such thing as darkness, we could still see light just fine. Just ask Alaskans. I bet some of them forget there is even such a thing as darkness sometimes. The perception of light and dark might be altered but not the reality of them. In the same way, a world where everyone’s actions were evil all the time would be an evil world. The absence of anything morally good would not mean that the formerly evil actions are all of the sudden morally neutral.

The only thing that good and evil require is a standard by which to judge which is which. It is the Christian contention that the standard is innate and therefore exists objectively and independant of the perception of it. I think this is a safe and reasonable position to take, seeing as how most base morals(don’t kill, rape, torture) are seemingly universal. I’m not just splitting hairs here. This is an important point. Good and evil don’t depend on one another but on a common moral metric.

“If there were no Hell … religion would have a hard time existing.”

Half-right. I would say it this way. If there were no hell, the only religions left would be the ones that nobody takes seriously anyway. There is a reason that the only religions that are taken seriously by a large number of people are the ones that include an idea of punishment for sin. Why would I believe in a religion who’s theology didn’t match universal moral intuitions? Everyone knows that killing babies for fun is wrong. If my theology didn’t include punishment for that act then why would I take it seriously? Christianity would certainly not exist since it’s foundational precept is Jesus saving us from that punishment. I’m not sure what that gets you though. That’s like saying, “If there were no such thing as sausage then my favorite food wouldn’t be sausage.”

“…faith is based entirely on what you can’t prove…”

Please! Not the old science is based on fact, religion is based on “faith” thing again. That’s scientism rearing it’s egotistical head. I guess it makes atheists feel better about themselves to think that they are the only reasonable ones that exist. Religious folk on the other hand all go around dreaming up things they would like to believe and then set about believing them so they can feel better about their cosmic Papa. I take offense to statements like that.

Nobody believes something that is absolutely without proof. They might be mistaken about the proof or it’s accuracy, but they still believe it to be proof. The reason people make statements like that is not because their is no proof for God, but because only certain types of proof are allowed to count for anything in their view. Philosophical arguments are not allowed. Likewise, any science that concludes with anything other than strict naturalism as an answer is not allowed. Just ask Michael Behe how easy it is to get peer review when your research points to supernaturalism.

Also, that description of faith is just totally wrong. Faith describes a secondary belief that results from a set of primary beliefs. If you define it any other way you are not talking about faith anymore. What he is talking about in the quote above is what we all know as “blind faith”. The two couldn’t be more different. For instance, if you had studied a certain set of chemical interactions for 10 years, you would be shocked if the resulting experiment didn’t produce your expected results. You would be shocked because faith had crept in. Not because you really wanted the experiment to work, but because all of the science behind it made sense to you, and demanded a certain result. On the contrary, blind faith just makes up whatever it wants and that is pretty silly.

As an example of faith being a result of other, more primary beliefs see my two previous posts on Agnosticism:

Christian philosophers have come on strong in the last 20 years. There are now theistic philosophers in many major philosophy departments around the world. This is not because philosophers like to make up things and then believe them. They are compelled by the evidence. Just ask Anthony Flew. I’m out of room for now but I will post some more later. Actually the rest of what he wrote is the part I’m most interested in. Particularly his mention of the “middle knowledge” argument.

Add Comment »