Study: Analytic thinking causes religious belief to diminish

posted at 10:35 pm on April 27, 2012 by Allahpundit

Alternate headline: “Hey, who’s up for an angry, thousand-comment thread on Friday night?”

First, students were randomly assigned to look at images of Auguste Rodin’s sculpture “The Thinker,” or of the ancient Greek statue of a discus thrower, “Discobolus.” Those who viewed “The Thinker” were prompted to think more analytically and expressed less belief in God — they scored an average of 41.42 on a 100-point scale, compared with an average of 61.55 for the group that viewed the discus thrower, according to the study.

Two additional experiments used word games rather than images. In one case, participants were asked to arrange a series of words into a sentence. Some were given neutral words and others were presented with trigger words such as “think,” “reason” and “analyze” to prime them to think more analytically. And indeed, those who got the “thinking” words expressed less religiosity on a 10-to-70 scale: They ranked themselves at 34.39, on average, while those in the control group averaged 40.16.

In the final experiment, students in the control group read text in a clear, legible font, while those in the other group were forced to squint at a font that was hard to read, a chore that has been shown to trigger analytic thinking. Sure enough, those who read the less legible font rated their belief in supernatural agents at 10.40 on a 3-to-21 scale, compared with 12.16 for those who read the clear font.

Lots of news stories about this on the wires today, as you might expect, but I think people are overinterpreting the results. As I understand it, the researchers aren’t claiming that analytic thinking will turn you atheist or that nonbelievers are sharper critical thinkers than the faithful. They’re claiming that intuition is a component of religious belief and that intuition tends to dim when the mind is preoccupied with reasoning, which means religious belief dims with it. Note: Dims, but not disappears. Per the study, you’re talking about small, if statistically significant, differences in belief between the test subjects and the control group. Says one psychologist of the results:

“In some ways this confirms what many people, both religious and nonreligious, have said about religious belief for a long time, that it’s more of a feeling than a thought,” says Nicholas Epley, a psychologist at the University of Chicago. But he predicts the findings won’t change anyone’s mind about whether God exists or whether religious belief is rational. “If you think that reasoning analytically is the way to go about understanding the world accurately, you might see this as evidence that being religious doesn’t make much sense,” he says. “If you’re a religious person, I think you take this evidence as showing that God has given you a system for belief that just reveals itself to you as common sense.”

Yeah, I’m not sure why these results are controversial; they can be interpreted in different ways. For instance, religious friends tell me that their faith isn’t merely something they’ve reasoned through but something they “feel” or “experience.” For God to enter your heart, you must be “open” to him. In other words, faith isn’t strictly analytic; there’s more to it, or so I’m told. It may be that, as your mind adjusts to perform analytic tasks by applying certain known criteria, its capacity to analyze something that doesn’t operate according to known criteria momentarily decreases. You become less “open” to supernatural possibilities. If that’s true, then it’s not that “intuitive” understandings are necessarily false (although maybe they are), it’s that it’s hard for the brain to switch quickly from one paradigm to the other. Or maybe there’s another explanation? I’m all for the “atheists are inherently awesome” theory, if anyone wants to offer it!


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7

My analytical nature has caused me to struggle my entire Christian life, and just when I reach a point of rejecting my faith, something so specific, so beyond coincidence, so illogical will happen that I find myself asking God to not let me go, no matter how much I may doubt. Everything I “know” pushes me away, and then, bam, something completely out of the realm of the logical happens to me and pulls me back in.

texanpride on April 28, 2012 at 1:33 PM

That has been the experience of many Saints/saints over the centuries. So you are in good company.

God bless you.

Elisa on April 28, 2012 at 2:10 PM

God = It?

Yep. I’m talking about the common understanding of what God is. All-powerful creator of the universe with an interest in human lives, more or less.

RightOFLeft on April 28, 2012 at 2:02 PM

So where is your proof that the common understanding is wrong?

Dr Evil on April 28, 2012 at 2:17 PM

It is often forgotten that Christians are near-atheists—of the thousands of gods invented by the charlatans of ages past, they only believe in three. A typical Christian’s capacity for disbelief in nonsense isn’t any more attenuated than that of the average atheist; the Christian is merely less consistent in applying it.

hicsuget on April 28, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Dr Evil on April 28, 2012 at 2:17 PM

I don’t know what you mean. I believe God is a fictional character. People can define it however they want and not be wrong.

RightOFLeft on April 28, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Pascal argued for the historicity of the bible, but the exact same arguments could be made for the Quran, or any other holy text.

RightOFLeft on April 28, 2012 at 1:10 PM

This, quite frankly, is hogwash. Whatever arguments one might make for the truth of the Koran or the Book of Mormon or whatever, are not the same as the arguments one can make for the Bible. Just as the case for George Washington’s existence isn’t the same as the case for Julius Caesar’s existence.

This is one assumption certain low-intellect atheists (ahem, Sauerkraut) frequently make on this site but it doesn’t make any sense. It’s an excuse (and a pretty dumb one) that you use to preclude actually looking at the evidence.

joe_doufu on April 28, 2012 at 2:39 PM

We are not going to find common ground on this topic at all if we cannot agree that time moves in a linear fashion, which you should not and cannot expect me to believe that you believe…

Bizarro No. 1 on April 28, 2012 at 1:47 PM

And here I go, after allegedly leaving twice already, because I couldn’t resist the urge to glance back at this thread…

I am not disputing at all that time moves linearly. I am asserting that it is not clear whether it has a beginning and/or end. If it didn’t have either, that would not make it any less linear than the integers or the real number line (hence the name).

This is the very point of contention that was under discussion – do things have to have a beginning or not? You say it’s a fallacy to believe there’s no beginning to time, and then say we aren’t going to get anywhere without agreeing first off that there is a beginning? This is not a fallacy, this is a disagreement over a premise, a premise that is not at all apparent.

RINO in Name Only on April 28, 2012 at 1:15 PM

I want to expound upon what I meant in my last post to you.

What I was getting at is that you and I don’t share the common ground that subtracting numbers from the number of times an event has already occurred brings us to a lower number – I believe that what I see you denying is beyond my ability to communicate effectively to you.

Bizarro No. 1 on April 28, 2012 at 2:06 PM

I got your point just fine – I have no problem subtracting the number of times something has happened, provided it has happened a finite number of times. My point is that if something happens infinitely often, then there is no “number of times” it happened in the first place.

Obviously you can’t do subtraction in any meaningful way if something happened infinitely often (which, of course, as the main reason we don’t treat infinity as a number), which is where your argument breaks down.

Now I’m going to try leave again, until I stupidly decide to glance back at the thread and get myself sucked in again.

Here goes.

RINO in Name Only on April 28, 2012 at 2:40 PM

There’s no need to prove that God doesn’t exist, and there’s no reason to believe that it does exist.

RightOFLeft on April 28, 2012 at 1:38 PM

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. “If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed”.[1] This burden does not necessarily require a mathematical or strictly logical proof, although many strong arguments do rise to this level (such as in logical syllogisms). Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question.[2][3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

davidk on April 28, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Every criticism I’ve seen of William Lane Craig’s Ontological Argument falls flat. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Decoski on April 28, 2012 at 2:47 PM

joe_doufu on April 28, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Unfortunately, I can assure you that Mohammed definitely was a real person. Nobody’s saying George Washington or Julius Caesar had magical powers. Once we start talking about people ascending to heaven or rising from the dead, all the holy books are on the same, shaky ground.

RightOFLeft on April 28, 2012 at 2:59 PM

davidk on April 28, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Isn’t the critic in this case the side denying that god exists? So it would be fallacious to shift the burden of proof to the critics side.

RightOFLeft on April 28, 2012 at 3:11 PM

Every criticism I’ve seen of William Lane Craig’s Ontological Argument falls flat. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Decoski on April 28, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Every cause must precede its effects. Since obviously there was no time before the beginning of time, the beginning of time cannot have had a cause, therefore it is not an effect.

DarkCurrent on April 28, 2012 at 3:13 PM

Unfortunately, I can assure you that Mohammed definitely was a real person.

RightOFLeft on April 28, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Proof?

davidk on April 28, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Isn’t the critic in this case the side denying that god exists? So it would be fallacious to shift the burden of proof to the critics side.

RightOFLeft on April 28, 2012 at 3:11 PM

I’m just waiting for an ateist to prove that God does not exist.

davidk on April 28, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Unfortunately, I can assure you that Mohammed definitely was a real person. Nobody’s saying George Washington or Julius Caesar had magical powers. Once we start talking about people ascending to heaven or rising from the dead, all the holy books are on the same, shaky ground.

RightOFLeft on April 28, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Mohammed, like Joseph Smith, claimed that God gave him a private revelation, for which there were no other witnesses, and which conveniently was very self-serving, making him a wealthy leader with no small number of wives and sex slaves. What’s the case for believing in that?

The New Testament, by contrast, features consistent eyewitness accounts from several very different men, men who had no reason to conspire to tell a lie, men who in almost every case died under torture because they refused a very simple request (to offer a little incense to the statue of Caesar). To believe their testimony is false is to imagine a conspiracy theory unlike any other in history was hatched by a couple fishermen, a tax collector, a foreign doctor, a Pharisee, and other unlikely characters, none of whom benefited from the conspiracy but all of whom were willing to die for it.

This alone is not the whole argument, and alone it may not be “proof”, but to say that the same case can be made for every religion is to embrace ignorance as a virtue. I would like to humbly suggest that you either learn something, or keep your dumb opinions to yourself.

joe_doufu on April 28, 2012 at 3:19 PM

Isn’t the critic in this case the side denying that god exists? So it would be fallacious to shift the burden of proof to the critics side.

RightOFLeft on April 28, 2012 at 3:11 PM

Nope, the burden is on the person making the “claim” but I can understand why you don’t want to be in the position of proving a negative.

Dr Evil on April 28, 2012 at 3:19 PM

Dr Evil on April 28, 2012 at 2:17 PM

I don’t know what you mean. I believe God is a fictional character. People can define it however they want and not be wrong.

RightOFLeft on April 28, 2012 at 2:24 PM

So God isn’t finite, he’s infinite, thanks for clearing that up lol!

Dr Evil on April 28, 2012 at 3:23 PM

joe_doufu on April 28, 2012 at 3:19 PM

I’d like to make a little prediction here.

The day is coming when all will be known. On that day, I guarentee you that people like RightOfLeft here will be decrying the Unfairness because they had ‘No Way Of Knowing’ what the truth was.

What scares me, however, is how I’m going to explain how little I did to rectify that.

jaydee_007 on April 28, 2012 at 3:37 PM

jaydee_007 on April 28, 2012 at 3:37 PM

He said, “Go and tell this people:

‘Be ever hearing, but never understanding;

be ever seeing, but never perceiving.’

Make the heart of this people calloused;

make their ears dull

and close their eyes.

Otherwise they might see with their eyes,

hear with their ears,

understand with their hearts,

and turn and be healed.”

Isaiah 6

davidk on April 28, 2012 at 3:45 PM

What scares me, however, is how I’m going to explain how little I did to rectify that.

jaydee_007 on April 28, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Yeah, I have way too much to answer for, to allow myself to feel smug.

joe_doufu on April 28, 2012 at 3:46 PM

I’d like to make a little prediction here.

The day is coming when all will be known. On that day, I guarentee you that people like RightOfLeft here will be decrying the Unfairness because they had ‘No Way Of Knowing’ what the truth was.

What scares me, however, is how I’m going to explain how little I did to rectify that.

jaydee_007 on April 28, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Since you’re making a guarantee perhaps you should tell us when it expires?

DarkCurrent on April 28, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Since you’re making a guarantee perhaps you should tell us when it expires?

DarkCurrent on April 28, 2012 at 3:47 PM

God says, “In the time of my favor I heard you,

and in the day of salvation I helped you.”

I tell you, now is the time of God’s favor, now is the day of salvation.

2 Corinthians 6

davidk on April 28, 2012 at 3:57 PM

davidk on April 28, 2012 at 3:57 PM

‘Suppose there is no hereafter and there is no fruit, no result, of deeds done well or ill. Yet in this world, here and now, free from hatred, free from malice, safe and sound, and happy, I keep myself.’

- Kalama Sutta

DarkCurrent on April 28, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Imagine there’s no heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people living for today

Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace

You, you may say
I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one
I hope some day you’ll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people sharing all the world

You, you may say
I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one
I hope some day you’ll join us
And the world will live as one

Keep dreaming.

davidk on April 28, 2012 at 4:07 PM

Since you’re making a guarantee perhaps you should tell us when it expires?

DarkCurrent on April 28, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Human nature being what it is; It Doesn’t!

jaydee_007 on April 28, 2012 at 4:10 PM

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man

Kind of easy to say all that when you are a Multi Millionaire making another million by saying that.

jaydee_007 on April 28, 2012 at 4:11 PM

davidk on April 28, 2012 at 4:07 PM

It is proper for you, Kalamas, to doubt, to be uncertain; uncertainty has arisen in you about what is doubtful. Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another’s seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, ‘The monk is our teacher.”

- Kalama Sutta

DarkCurrent on April 28, 2012 at 4:13 PM

Human nature being what it is; It Doesn’t!

jaydee_007 on April 28, 2012 at 4:10 PM

I notice from your picture you’re an orange badge :)

DarkCurrent on April 28, 2012 at 4:17 PM

I notice from your picture you’re an orange badge :)

DarkCurrent on April 28, 2012 at 4:17 PM

Not anymore, I left and went back to NCR!

jaydee_007 on April 28, 2012 at 4:27 PM

While I can understand why someone might hold a belief in a deity, it has never failed to amaze me why some insist so vehemently on a literal interpretation of their scripture of choice.

As we continue to learn more and more about the bizarre reality in which we find ourselves, it just seems so obvious to me that all of Man’s creation myths are just the products of primitive and ignorant minds.

No human could ever have predicted how immense, unintuitive and magnificent our Universe and the laws of nature would turn out to be, so perhaps that explains why none of it ever made it into any holy books.

SauerKraut537 on April 28, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Not anymore, I left and went back to NCR!

jaydee_007 on April 28, 2012 at 4:27 PM

In any case well-met! I had an orange badge myself in ’94, then blue since ’95.

I’m originally from the area by birth, but exiled to China a bit over 6 years ago.

DarkCurrent on April 28, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Isn’t the critic in this case the side denying that god exists? So it would be fallacious to shift the burden of proof to the critics side.

RightOFLeft on April 28, 2012 at 3:11 PM

Nope, the burden is on the person making the “claim” but I can understand why you don’t want to be in the position of proving a negative.

Dr Evil on April 28, 2012 at 3:19 PM

This “burden of proof” nonsense is just that. The burden of proof is on anyone who claims to know anything about anything. Yes atheists, that means you too.

The default answer is not “There is a God” or “There isn’t a God”. The default answer is “Maybe”.

If you assert that God exists, you should either make a logical argument, or admit that your assertion is something that you personally are willing to accept as a premise, and that you believe is self-evident.

If you assert that God does not exist, you should either make a logical argument, or admit that your assertion is something that you personally are willing to accept as a premise, and that you believe is self-evident.

The only time you do not have a burden of proof is if you are not claiming to know the answer in the first place.

That is all. You may all now return to your regularly scheduled theological food-fight.

(Wow, I stayed away from the thread for almost two whole hours without getting sucked back in. Let’s see how long I can last this time.)

RINO in Name Only on April 28, 2012 at 4:36 PM

The only time you do not have a burden of proof is if you are not claiming to know the answer in the first place.

RINO in Name Only on April 28, 2012 at 4:36 PM

I assert there are no fairies in my garden. Now I have to prove it?

Well maybe there are fairies in my garden…

DarkCurrent on April 28, 2012 at 4:43 PM

This “burden of proof” nonsense is just that.

RINO in Name Only on April 28, 2012 at 4:36 PM

I beleive I said that in page 5;

jaydee_007 on April 28, 2012 at 11:53 AM

jaydee_007 on April 28, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Every cause must precede its effects. Since obviously there was no time before the beginning of time, the beginning of time cannot have had a cause, therefore it is not an effect.

DarkCurrent on April 28, 2012 at 3:13 PM

God is eternal. He is the uncaused cause; therefore, your time argument is invalid. Thanks for playing.

Decoski on April 28, 2012 at 5:09 PM

I assert there are no fairies in my garden. Now I have to prove it?

Well maybe there are fairies in my garden…

DarkCurrent on April 28, 2012 at 4:43 PM

No, you just have to acknowledge that your believe has not been derived from logic, but rather from your intuition that fairies do not exist. I happen to share that intuition, as do most people here. Acting upon that intuition has not prevented us from living fruitful and satisfying lives, so there isn’t any particular reason to address the issue.

It is a bit unusual to think there are fairies in your garden, but the only logical problem with the belief would be if you suggested that you had deduced the existence of fairies from some other, less controversial premise. Then you would have some explaining to do.

If your belief in Garden fairies is some gut-level thing that you intuit, well, fine, as long as you don’t cause too much of a ruckus in your fairy war.

Something can be silly without being inherently illogical. The flying spaghetti monster that some atheists are so fond of is another example of that.

What they don’t seem to realize, though, is that these examples don’t really prove anything other than the futility of using logic for these types of questions in the first place. Like I was saying before, it all depends on your premises.

RINO in Name Only on April 28, 2012 at 5:21 PM

I beleive I said that in page 5;

jaydee_007 on April 28, 2012 at 11:53 AM

jaydee_007 on April 28, 2012 at 4:56 PM

You did indeed. Sorry I didn’t notice.

RINO in Name Only on April 28, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Every cause must precede its effects. Since obviously there was no time before the beginning of time, the beginning of time cannot have had a cause, therefore it is not an effect.

DarkCurrent on April 28, 2012 at 3:13 PM

God is eternal. He is the uncaused cause; therefore, your time argument is invalid. Thanks for playing.

Decoski on April 28, 2012 at 5:09 PM

If I didn’t know better, I’d suggest that the words “cause” and “effect” were being used so loosely and casually in this discussion that they are rendered almost meaningless.

Perhaps “causes” and “effects” are just abstract nouns that we use to make it easier for our primitive human minds to describe how and why we think things happen.

Has anyone here ever touched seen a “cause” or effect? Touched it? Tasted it?

RINO in Name Only on April 28, 2012 at 5:35 PM

God is eternal. He is the uncaused cause; therefore, your time argument is invalid. Thanks for playing.

Decoski on April 28, 2012 at 5:09 PM

So in your theory of the cosmos, uncaused things exist as special cases?

Yet you assert a need for a cause…

DarkCurrent on April 28, 2012 at 5:36 PM

RINO in Name Only on April 28, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Wrong, I am not making the claim. I don’t have to provide proof of anything.

Dr Evil on April 28, 2012 at 5:42 PM

Wrong, I am not making the claim. I don’t have to provide proof of anything.

Dr Evil on April 28, 2012 at 5:42 PM

If you are not making any claim one way or the other about God’s existence, but only disputing someone else’s analysis, then that is correct, and is in fact precisely my point.

I apologize for the implication that you were making a claim one way or the other. If your position is either “I’m not sure of God’s existence” or “I believe, but do not claim that I can prove, that God exists,” then I have no disagreement.

RINO in Name Only on April 28, 2012 at 5:59 PM

So in your theory of the cosmos, uncaused things exist as special cases?

Yet you assert a need for a cause…

DarkCurrent on April 28, 2012 at 5:36 PM

Whatever begins to exists has a cause. God is eternal. Comprende?

Decoski on April 28, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Whatever begins to exists has a cause. God is eternal. Comprende?

Decoski on April 28, 2012 at 6:10 PM

You assert God exists, then assert God is eternal, both assertions completely unfounded. 明白吗?

DarkCurrent on April 28, 2012 at 6:22 PM

Whatever begins to exists has a cause. God is eternal. Comprende?

Decoski on April 28, 2012 at 6:10 PM

The universe is eternal.

DarkCurrent on April 28, 2012 at 6:23 PM

The universe is eternal.

DarkCurrent on April 28, 2012 at 6:23 PM

You don’t keep up with modern science theories, do you?

CanofSand on April 28, 2012 at 6:29 PM

by the time you’re arguing about the “uncaused causer” you’re no longer arguing for the existence of god.

i would love for one of these lovers of aristotle to walk the argument forward to a proof that jesus is god’s only son, or even that the prime mover is an intelligence.

eh on April 28, 2012 at 6:33 PM

You don’t keep up with modern science theories, do you?

CanofSand on April 28, 2012 at 6:29 PM

Not much. Enlighten me.

DarkCurrent on April 28, 2012 at 6:35 PM

Not much. Enlighten me.

DarkCurrent on April 28, 2012 at 6:35 PM

String Theory

Dr Evil on April 28, 2012 at 6:39 PM

And here I go, after allegedly leaving twice already, because I couldn’t resist the urge to glance back at this thread…

I am not disputing at all that time moves linearly. I am asserting that it is not clear whether it has a beginning and/or end. If it didn’t have either, that would not make it any less linear than the integers or the real number line (hence the name).

This is the very point of contention that was under discussion – do things have to have a beginning or not? You say it’s a fallacy to believe there’s no beginning to time, and then say we aren’t going to get anywhere without agreeing first off that there is a beginning? This is not a fallacy, this is a disagreement over a premise, a premise that is not at all apparent.

RINO in Name Only on April 28, 2012 at 1:15 PM

I want to expound upon what I meant in my last post to you.

What I was getting at is that you and I don’t share the common ground that subtracting numbers from the number of times an event has already occurred brings us to a lower number – I believe that what I see you denying is beyond my ability to communicate effectively to you.

Bizarro No. 1 on April 28, 2012 at 2:06 PM

I got your point just fine – I have no problem subtracting the number of times something has happened, provided it has happened a finite number of times. My point is that if something happens infinitely often, then there is no “number of times” it happened in the first place.

Obviously you can’t do subtraction in any meaningful way if something happened infinitely often (which, of course, as the main reason we don’t treat infinity as a number), which is where your argument breaks down.

Now I’m going to try leave again, until I stupidly decide to glance back at the thread and get myself sucked in again.

Here goes.

RINO in Name Only on April 28, 2012 at 2:40 PM

Using the rising sun as an example, the only way the sun could have already risen an infinite # of times is if X=X+1 and X also equals X-1. Obviously, X=X+1 and X=X-1 cannot be simultaneously true, logically speaking, yet you don’t seem capable of understanding this, at least partially because you refuse to balk at the patently ridiculous assertion that an infinite regression of time is not a type of infinite regression.

I’m guess I’m sorry to have to say this, but this is a hopeless discussion that can’t go anywhere from here because we don’t have a common understanding of what logic is!

Bizarro No. 1 on April 28, 2012 at 6:42 PM

String Theory

Dr Evil on April 28, 2012 at 6:39 PM

勉強になった。

DarkCurrent on April 28, 2012 at 6:43 PM

Mohammed, like unlike Joseph Smith, claimed that God gave him a private revelation, for which there were no other witnesses…

The New Testament and the Book of Mormon, by contrast, features consistent eyewitness accounts from several very different men, men who had no reason to conspire to tell a lie, many of whom died, were jailed, were tortured, were robbed, were driven from place to place, were forced to endure their families being raped and tortured. To believe their testimony is false is to imagine a conspiracy theory unlike any other in history was hatched by … unlikely characters, none of whom benefited from the conspiracy but all of whom were willing to die for it.

joe_doufu on April 28, 2012 at 3:19 PM

Fixed it for you. You don’t have to agree that their words were all true, but to lie (even out of ignorance) about the circumstances as you did is pretty vile: The work of a bigot.

CanofSand on April 28, 2012 at 6:44 PM

Bizarro No. 1 on April 28, 2012 at 6:42 PM

Not to mention that X =/= X + 1 from the git-go.

davidk on April 28, 2012 at 6:52 PM

The universe is eternal.

DarkCurrent on April 28, 2012 at 6:23 PM

You don’t keep up with modern science theories, do you?

CanofSand on April 28, 2012 at 6:29 PM

Modern science is great for describing the mechanics of how certain things in the physical world behave. Newtonian physics, on intermediate scales at least, as a great example.

I trust the current scientific theories on how the universe was created about as much as I trust the theory of global warming. Maybe even less so. And I’m pretty sure most theoretical physicists would agree with me.

Don’t get me wrong, they’ve got some very clever ideas and suspicions, and I don’t doubt they’ve done the best anyone can in terms of figuring these things out. But they certainly have not come to anything close to a definitive conclusion on things like whether the universe is infinite or not. It’s all just supposition at this point.

RINO in Name Only on April 28, 2012 at 6:54 PM

Using the rising sun as an example, the only way the sun could have already risen an infinite # of times is if X=X+1 and X also equals X-1.

What? Are you suggesting that infinite quantities don’t exist because when you try to do ordinary arithmetic with it, it causes you to deduce incorrect things?

Is $X$ supposed to represent the number of times the sun has risen? You can’t do arithmetic using infinity and expect to get anything other than a nonsensical conclusion, unless you abide by some fairly cumbersome rules.

The fact that arithmetic doesn’t work well with infinity doesn’t mean nothing can be infinite. Obviously there are many infinite things, like integers, real numbers, etcetera. Why would you think time would have to be otherwise?

Your reasoning here is similar to the many “proofs” that 1=0, which almost always involve dividing by 0, adding infinity to both sides of an equation, or some other mathematical fallacy.

” Obviously, X=X+1 and X=X-1 cannot be simultaneously true, logically speaking, yet you don’t seem capable of understanding this,

Either you treat infinity as a number or you don’t.

If you do, then yes, infinity + 1 = infinity = infinity – 1, and there is no logical problem, though you will quickly run into trouble if you try to do anything other than the simplest of arithmetic. In mathematical terms you would have to work with what are called the extended real numbers.

If you don’t treat infinity as a number, then you can’t use X to represent the “number” of times the sun has risen in the first place!

at least partially because you refuse to balk at the patently ridiculous assertion that an infinite regression of time is not a type of infinite regression.

I’m guess I’m sorry to have to say this, but this is a hopeless discussion that can’t go anywhere from here because we don’t have a common understanding of what logic is!

Bizarro No. 1 on April 28, 2012 at 6:42 PM

I don’t see this as a fruitless discussion. If we really don’t have a common foundation for what logic is, then one of us is in for some serious trouble and it would be good if we could get to the nub of where the confusion is now, safely on the internet.

RINO in Name Only on April 28, 2012 at 7:14 PM

Bizarro No. 1 on April 28, 2012 at 6:42 PM

Not to mention that X =/= X + 1 from the git-go.

davidk on April 28, 2012 at 6:52 PM

That’s the whole point. If you are describing an infinite quantity, then you either
1. Cannot use arithmetic
or
2. Have to assume very counter-intuitive things, like “infinity = infinity+1=infinity-1

Let me ask you both flat-out. Do you accept that some things (for example, the set of integers) can be infinite? Because if you do, I could make the same kinds of arguments you’re making here. I could say:

There can’t be infinitely many integers, because if $X$ is the number of integers, and you keep subtracting 1, then you never get to 0 like you’re supposed to. Therefore, the theory of infinitely many numbers existing is a fallacy.

Surely neither of you believe that. So why dispute that time could in principle be infinite as well. Not to say that it is or isn’t/ But how is it a logical fallacy?

RINO in Name Only on April 28, 2012 at 7:21 PM

tommyboy on April 28, 2012 at 10:18 AM

bull.

Judaism is a hummingbird. The religion that Paul/Saul founded is a paper wasp. both fly and eat nectar-but that is ALL they now have in common.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 28, 2012 at 7:24 PM

But they certainly have not come to anything close to a definitive conclusion on things like whether the universe is infinite or not. It’s all just supposition at this point.

RINO in Name Only on April 28, 2012 at 6:54 PM

Did I say otherwise? I was simply pointing out the flaw in someone else’s reasoning, who seemed to assume it HAD been figured out.

CanofSand on April 28, 2012 at 7:29 PM

annoyinglittletwerp on April 28, 2012 at 7:24 PM

Hahaha! That’s ALL they have in common, huh? Are you quite done throwing all your credibility on this subject out the window, or are you going to further entertain us with your unusual comedy stylings today?

CanofSand on April 28, 2012 at 7:33 PM

Did I say otherwise? I was simply pointing out the flaw in someone else’s reasoning, who seemed to assume it HAD been figured out.

CanofSand on April 28, 2012 at 7:29 PM

Fair enough. I was figuring Dark Current was expressing more of a religious belief – I hadn’t thought to think of it as an actual scientific claim.

RINO in Name Only on April 28, 2012 at 7:34 PM

Judaism is a hummingbird. The religion that Paul/Saul founded is a paper wasp. both fly and eat nectar-but that is ALL they now have in common.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 28, 2012 at 7:24 PM

You might have been a Buddhist if you’d ever had the brains to consider more than two options.

DarkCurrent on April 28, 2012 at 7:35 PM

If X = infinity, then X = X + 1 = X – 1 = X + X.

davidk on April 28, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Elisa on April 28, 2012 at 1:42 PM

The problem, Elisa, is that there you’ve just offered up a slew of unconnected, out-of-context “proof texts” (as they are called) assembled – not by you, of course – in an attempt to shore up a doctrine(s) hobbled together as a result of political power struggles centuries after Christ.

whatcat on April 28, 2012 at 7:42 PM

RINO in Name Only on April 28, 2012 at 7:21 PM

There may be an infinite number of integers. But no one has counted them.

There are an infin ite number of points between Sero and One, but thatn is because they do not have dimension.

Time has dimension.

In our time zone, it is one-dimensional.

I suspect in the spirit realm it is (at least) two-dimensional. That is all hypothetical.

davidk on April 28, 2012 at 7:44 PM

DarkCurrent on April 28, 2012 at 7:35 PM

I was a new-ager when I was in my teens.
It wasn’t for me.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 28, 2012 at 7:44 PM

If X = infinity, then X = X + 1 = X – 1 = X + X.

davidk on April 28, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Well, like I said, if you are working with the extended reals, then yes. But you’re in dangerous waters, since if you try to ever subtract infinity from infinity, you’ll get some nonsense.

Like I said, the extended reals are a bit cumbersome, which is because they are designed for situations where you really need to treat infinity like a number even though it really isn’t.

The wikipedia link I gave before,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_real_number_line

has a lot of technical jargon, but the main idea is that sometimes it is convenient to treat infinity as a number, and you can avoid running into problems as long as you don’t try to both add and subtract infinity. There are other things you can’t do, like multiplying infinity by 0 – actually, you can do that, but it gets complicated.

The real bottom line, though, is that however much you might want to treat infinity like a number, deep down inside, it really isn’t. If something is infinite, and you try to count it, then you are asking for mathematical trouble.

RINO in Name Only on April 28, 2012 at 7:46 PM

between Zero and one–but you-all knew that.

davidk on April 28, 2012 at 7:46 PM

whatcat on April 28, 2012 at 7:42 PM

Did you know that the Jewish Tanakh is in a different order than the ‘old testament’ that Christians use is arranged to point to jesus. In the order of the original Jewish version-the Tanakh does no such thing.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 28, 2012 at 7:48 PM

RINO in Name Only on April 28, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Did I mention I was an English major?

davidk on April 28, 2012 at 7:48 PM

There may be an infinite number of integers. But no one has counted them.

May be? Really? Obviously you can’t count them all because you can only count a finite number in any given time interval, and you only have a finite amount of time to live.

I didn’t realize, though, that we had any disagreement that there are infinitely many numbers!

There are an infin ite number of points between Sero and One, but thatn is because they do not have dimension.

Time has dimension.

First, I’m not sure what you mean by “dimension” here. There are a bazillion different mathematical meanings for dimension, but ironically, one of the few instances where almost all of them coincide is the unit interval (the points between zero and one).

Almost all definitions of dimension say that’s one dimensional, though there are a few instances where people who are only interested in studying things at very large scales would use definitions that make it 0 dimensional.

Time is generally measured using real numbers. As in the real number line. This is also pretty much 1 dimensional, by almost any definition of the word.

In our time zone, it is one-dimensional.

I’m not sure what you mean by time zone, here.

I suspect in the spirit realm it is (at least) two-dimensional. That is all hypothetical.

davidk on April 28, 2012 at 7:44 PM

Can’t say much one way or the other about that, I agree there.

RINO in Name Only on April 28, 2012 at 7:54 PM

Did I mention I was an English major?

davidk on April 28, 2012 at 7:48 PM

That explains why your English is better than mine. Can you guess my major?:)

RINO in Name Only on April 28, 2012 at 7:56 PM

Several functions can be continuously extended to R by taking limits. ["R" should have a bar over it, denoting the set of {+ infinty, - infinity}]

That sure seems counter-intuitive. Ectending to infinity by “taking” limits.

davidk on April 28, 2012 at 7:56 PM

That explains why your English is better than mine. Can you guess my major?:)

RINO in Name Only on April 28, 2012 at 7:56 PM

Rocket science?

davidk on April 28, 2012 at 7:57 PM

whatcat on April 28, 2012 at 7:42 PM

Did you know that the Jewish Tanakh is in a different order than the ‘old testament’ that Christians use is arranged to point to jesus. In the order of the original Jewish version-the Tanakh does no such thing.
annoyinglittletwerp on April 28, 2012 at 7:48 PM

Yup, I knowed dat!
:D
Not so sure about the rearrangement to fit Christian theology, but that wouldn’t be too surprising to me. Just as the Catholic bible includes books not held as Holy Scripture by either Jews or non-Catholic Christians.
I think the problem is as it is in many areas – when someone has an agenda, they read stuff into things that just isn’t there. It’s like the race-hustlers who find racism in even the most innocent of things.

whatcat on April 28, 2012 at 7:58 PM

I’m not sure what you mean by time zone, here.

RINO in Name Only on April 28, 2012 at 7:54 PM

Creative writing.

davidk on April 28, 2012 at 7:59 PM

The human brain is not a two dimensional binary calculator. The black and white of WHAT you think is colored by how you feel. The nerve synapse is a tapering cone. One neural transmitter is a physically smaller molecule than the other. The smaller one must travel farther up into the narrowing cone and that takes longer so the trigger occurs later on in the clock cycle the larger molecule doesn’t have to travel as far up into the cone so the nerve is triggered much sooner in the clock cycle. This is what makes the brain literally a three dimensional processor.

Belief is for things you CAN prove. Faith is for things you FEEL compelled to accept but IT can’t be proven.
THE TWO WORDS ARE NOT INTERCHANGABLE.

Pole-Cat on April 28, 2012 at 8:06 PM

Since you’re making a guarantee perhaps you should tell us when it expires?

DarkCurrent on April 28, 2012 at 3:47 PM

When a person expires. “It is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment” (Hebrews 9:27).

whatcat on April 28, 2012 at 8:10 PM

Several functions can be continuously extended to R by taking limits. ["R" should have a bar over it, denoting the set of {+ infinty, - infinity}]

That sure seems counter-intuitive. Ectending to infinity by “taking” limits.

davidk on April 28, 2012 at 7:56 PM

Well, like I said, there’s a bit of technical jargon here. What it means is more or less this:

take a function like f(x) = 1/(x^2), for example. Perfectly well defined function as long as you don’t plug in 0.
f(x) = x^2. Then you could plug in numbers, f(2) = 1/4, f(3)=1/9, etc.

But what if you really wanted to have the function be defined at 0 as well? Not only that, but you wanted it to be continuous at 0, which is a fancy way of saying “when I take x and move it closer and closer to 0, I’d like for f(x) to get closer and closer to f(0).

Well, there’s no actual number you can fill in for f(0) that will make that work. As I get closer and closer to 0, 1/x^2 gets arbitrarily large. If I say “OK, I’ll make f(0)= 10,000″, then you could say “fine, but once x gets smaller than 100, f(x) will be bigger than 10,000, and will keep getting bigger and bigger. So f(x) doesn’t approach 10,000 as x goes to 0.

If you’re willing to treat infinity as a number – a dangerous thing, but I like to live dangerously:) – then you can say “f(0)=infinity.” And then you will have a function that is continuous at 0.

What they are saying in the article is slightly different – they’re saying the input value, meaning x, can go to infinity, and in some cases, (like this one), you can say “OK, I’m going to declare f(infinity) = 0. And in this case, you get something that is “continuous at infinity, because, lo and behold, the closer x gets to infinity, the closer f(x) gets to 0.

It can get a bit dicey, though, which is why I was saying it’s a little dangerous to treat infinity like a number.

And once you realize that it’s really not a number, it’s easier to understand why arithmetical arguments don’t really work.

Wow, that was a mouthful. I hope it wasn’t too incoherent.

RINO in Name Only on April 28, 2012 at 8:15 PM

Rocket science?

davidk on April 28, 2012 at 7:57 PM

Fortunately for our nation’s astronauts, no – I’d probably drop a minus sign somewhere and cause something to explode.

Creative writing.

davidk on April 28, 2012 at 7:59 PM

Fraid not.

It’s actually mathematics.

RINO in Name Only on April 28, 2012 at 8:17 PM

$∞=Obamanomics

Pole-Cat on April 28, 2012 at 8:18 PM

f(x) = x^2. Then you could plug in numbers, f(2) = 1/4, f(3)=1/9, etc.

RINO in Name Only on April 28, 2012 at 8:15 PM

Oops, I was toying around with some different examples and forgot to delete that equation. Now you see why they keep me away from the rockets:)

RINO in Name Only on April 28, 2012 at 8:19 PM

-$∞=Obamanomics

Pole-Cat on April 28, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Speaking of dropping minus signs…

RINO in Name Only on April 28, 2012 at 8:20 PM

Belief is for things you CAN prove. Faith is for things you FEEL compelled to accept but IT can’t be proven.
THE TWO WORDS ARE NOT INTERCHANGABLE.

Pole-Cat on April 28, 2012 at 8:06 PM

That’s not the definition of Belief.

Dr Evil on April 28, 2012 at 8:37 PM

Judaism is a hummingbird. The religion that Paul/Saul founded is a paper wasp. both fly and eat nectar-but that is ALL they now have in common.
annoyinglittletwerp on April 28, 2012 at 7:24 PM

You might have been a Buddhist if you’d ever had the brains to consider more than two options.
DarkCurrent on April 28, 2012 at 7:35 PM

No, she has a point. There’s a reason why you don’t have Presbyterians, Lutherans, Amish, Catholics, etc. filling synagogues on Shabbat. Or vice versa.

whatcat on April 28, 2012 at 8:37 PM

be·lief   [bih-leef]
noun
1.
something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2.
confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3.
confidence; faith; trust: a child’s belief in his parents.
4.
a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

Dr Evil on April 28, 2012 at 8:38 PM

OK, is anyone else getting cold down here? I think I’m going to move upstairs into today’s comments.

RINO in Name Only on April 28, 2012 at 8:46 PM

You might have been a Buddhist if you’d ever had the brains to consider more than two options.
DarkCurrent on April 28, 2012 at 7:35 PM

Damnit man! I’m faced with two options…

One, be a buddhist, or two, have more brains than to be limited to these two options.

I love you eastern adherents. So much to ridicule!

tom daschle concerned on April 28, 2012 at 9:54 PM

Beleif is the end of inquiry.

…Christor Murty.

Kind of redundant, what.

jaydee_007 on April 28, 2012 at 10:29 PM

annoyinglittletwerp on April 28, 2012 at 7:24 PM

Did you know that Jesus said the problem with the Jews wasn’t that you don’t believe in Him; the problem with the Jews is that you don’t even believe in Moses?

Cleombrotus on April 28, 2012 at 11:20 PM

Jesus said the problem with the Jews
Cleombrotus on April 28, 2012 at 11:20 PM

You do know that Jesus is Jewish, correct? He has a problem with himself?

whatcat on April 28, 2012 at 11:24 PM

whatcat on April 28, 2012 at 11:24 PM

“He came to His own home and His own people received Him not”

John 1:11 (John was a Jew, as well)

Cleombrotus on April 28, 2012 at 11:57 PM

“He came to His own home and His own people received Him not”
John 1:11 (John was a Jew, as well)
Cleombrotus on April 28, 2012 at 11:57 PM

True, inasmuch as his family didn’t believe him and thought he was out of his mind.

whatcat on April 29, 2012 at 12:07 AM

Elisa on April 28, 2012 at 1:42 PM

The problem, Elisa, is that there you’ve just offered up a slew of unconnected, out-of-context “proof texts” (as they are called) assembled – not by you, of course – in an attempt to shore up a doctrine(s) hobbled together as a result of political power struggles centuries after Christ.

whatcat on April 28, 2012 at 7:42 PM

The quotes were to support my post right above that one (Elisa on April 28, 2012 at 1:39 PM) where I said that (like the other Apostles who evangelized the Gospel), St. John did not need Paul to invent Christ’s message for him to write about and evangelize. (as a couple previous posters had inferred.)

For 2 reasons. John was his own personal eyewitness, having lived with Jesus for 3 years and heard the Gospel from Jesus’ own lips. And St. John’s Gospel and his other writings are without a doubt the New Testament books that show Christ’s Divinity the most.
If you read the post again, the Bible quotes you took issue with because they were “unconnected, out-of-context “ were broken out into 2 types. The ones that showed John was an eyewitness and the ones that showed John himself preached Jesus was Divine. It didn’t come only from St. Paul, like a couple previous posters inferred.

The quotes were assembled my me, hurriedly, so I apologize if the point wasn’t clear enough. But I note that no one, including yourself, has disputed my points.

The Christian doctrine that Christ is God was not “hobbled together as a result of political power struggles centuries after Christ.”

Here is just one quote, way before Constantine stopped the persecution of Christians in the 4th century. Obviously there are others.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0104.htm

St. Ignatius of Antioch (Bishop in good standing hand picked by St. Peter)

around 110AD

Letter to the Ephesians (Ch7 and Ch19):

“There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first passible and then impassible— even Jesus Christ our Lord. . . .
For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost . . .
God Himself being manifested in human form for the renewal of eternal life.”

If you could show me ANY early Christian writings by Bishops or apologists who were in good standing with the universal Christian Church during their own lifetime (the first 3 centuries of Christianity), saying that Jesus was not God, that would be interesting. But I will save you the time. Those quotes do not exist.

The Christian Church, made up of those who passed on the orthodox Gospel of Christ and were united in those faith beliefs around the entire Asia Minor, always preached that Christ was Divine. That was not a later invention centuries later.

Elisa on April 29, 2012 at 12:20 AM

whatcat on April 28, 2012 at 7:42 PM
Did you know that the Jewish Tanakh is in a different order than the ‘old testament’ that Christians use is arranged to point to jesus. In the order of the original Jewish version-the Tanakh does no such thing.
annoyinglittletwerp on April 28, 2012 at 7:48 PM

Yup, I knowed dat!
:D
Not so sure about the rearrangement to fit Christian theology, but that wouldn’t be too surprising to me. Just as the Catholic bible includes books not held as Holy Scripture by either Jews or non-Catholic Christians.
I think the problem is as it is in many areas – when someone has an agenda, they read stuff into things that just isn’t there. It’s like the race-hustlers who find racism in even the most innocent of things.

whatcat on April 28, 2012 at 7:58 PM

Just a few things.

The Christian Old Testament books were not arranged in any order that pointed to the Messiah. There are 7 books that Jerusalem and European Jews did not include in their canon when they finally came up with an official canon a few centuries after Christ. (Even that canon is not universal to this day, because Ethiopian Jews still use the Septuagint.) But the order the books are arranged in and the grouping of books together have nothing at all to do with pointing to Christ. That would be in the translations and interpretations.

And the current order of the Jewish Tanahk was not the “original.

The Masoretic text, which is what the modern Jewish Tanahk is, was also translated and assembled centuries after Christ. It was, however, based on pre-Masoretic Hebrew texts.

The Jews around the time of Christ did not have only one canon of Scripture. They had several. The pre-Masoretic Hebrew texts I mentioned and the Septuagint were 2 of them. That is because the Jewish faith at the time of Christ relied more on the Sacred Oral Jewish Tradition that the Old Testament Sacred Scriptures sprang from. The belief that the Holy Spirit spoke orally through the Church, as well as in writing, came from the Jews.

So an official canon of books or order of books or translation of books was not important to Jews at the time of Christ and they didn’t have one.

Since the language used by most Jews in the Middle East at the time was Greek, the Septuagint was one of the most popular canons used by Jews during the time of Jesus. The Septuagint included those 7 books that the Jerusalem and European Jews later did not include in their final canon.

The Septuagint became the canon of Christian Scriptures. To this day, it is the official translation and canon of the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches, as well as Ethiopian Jew.

The reason we know this is that 2/3rds of all the Old Testament quotes found in the New Testament are from the Septuagint. And many of the early Christian writers during the first few centuries of the Church also used the Septuagint.

In the 4th century, the Bishops of the Christian Church, after a few decades of debate, came up with the official Christian canon of both Old Testament and New Testament Scriptures. No other books were allowed to be read at Christian Masses.

That list of Scriptures did not change for the universal Christian Church until Martin Luther in the 16th century said that the 7 Old Testament books that modern Jews did not include and 4 New Testament books (James, Revelation, Hebrews and Jude) were not Scriptural to him and did not include them in his official canon. Within a century, Lutherans put back the 4 New Testament books, but left out the 7 Old Testament books. Even though the 1st edition of the King James Bible included these 7 books, all Protestants ceased to include them from that time on.

Elisa on April 29, 2012 at 12:35 AM

whatcat on April 29, 2012 at 12:07 AM

John wasn’t just talking about his family but of the nation of Israel. When he does refer to his brothers not believing, he writes, “for even His own brothers did not believe in Him” John 7:5

Cleombrotus on April 29, 2012 at 12:56 AM

The Christian doctrine that Christ is God was not “hobbled together as a result of political power struggles centuries after Christ.”
Elisa on April 29, 2012 at 12:35 AM

Actually, it was. Though, I don’t begrudge you the revision which lends credence to the religious tradition of your choosing. It’s a common part of just about every religious tradition to string together evidence, such as it is, to support whatever tradition in question. e.g. you mentioned the incorporation of extra-biblical texts rejected both by non-Catholic Christians and Jews – 2nd Maccabees is included in Catholic bibles to support the later conceived doctrine of Purgatory.

whatcat on April 29, 2012 at 1:01 AM

John wasn’t just talking about his family but of the nation of Israel.
Cleombrotus on April 29, 2012 at 12:56 AM

There was no nation of Israel in Jesus’ time. It was the Roman province of Judea. However, back to the false concept of some Jew-Jesus dichotomy, it just did not exist. As I said, with Jesus being a Jew, it’s silly to even propose such a dichotomy.

whatcat on April 29, 2012 at 1:10 AM

whatcat on April 29, 2012 at 1:10 AM

That’s like saying it’s silly to proper a Socrates-Greek dichotomy, isn’t it?

Cleombrotus on April 29, 2012 at 1:17 AM

whatcat on April 29, 2012 at 1:10 AM
That’s like saying it’s silly to proper propose a Socrates-Greek dichotomy, isn’t it?
Cleombrotus on April 29, 2012 at 1:17 AM

Cleombrotus on April 29, 2012 at 1:19 AM

That’s like saying it’s silly to proper a Socrates-Greek dichotomy, isn’t it?
Cleombrotus on April 29, 2012 at 1:17 AM

A more correct analogy, as it relates here, would be “Socrates-Philosophy dichotomy”.

whatcat on April 29, 2012 at 1:20 AM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7