Dr Blosser,
This is purely personal and not for posting.
A technical question.
I can't figure out how to link to your posting on Dawkins -- or even how to bookmark it.
Most bloggers have something called Permalink that lets you get the job done and I was wondering if you might have some similar gizmo cleverly hidden away.
Best wishes,
Ted Joy
Let us cut out all the fluff on evolution vs creation and ask the important questions.
1. On what date were the first souls "handed out"?
2. When did God make us "free-willers"?
3. When did God give us the gift of "future"?
4. And where and to whom?
These are only really questions for the devotees of Christian evolutionism. If we accept the story that at creation God created a being called Man and infused him with a soul, all of these questions except sin are answered. For sin, read newspapers back as far as they exist ...
Chris
Ted Joy,
You can link by clicking on the pound [#] sign at the end of the post.
"Let us cut out all the fluff on evolution vs creation and ask the important questions."
I agree that these are important questions, perhaps even the most important questions. But how can they be unrelated to those subsidiary questions you want to set aside?
Francis A. Schaeffer would offer the beginning of an answer to all four of your questions by pointing out that so-called "Neanderthal Man" was buried (buried!) with flower petals (flower petals!) scattered in his grave. With best regards, think on that.
Then when was that first day of creation in the life tree of homosapiens?
"Then when was that first day of creation in the life tree of homosapiens?"
Whether the question is framed in terms theistic evolution or special creation, a question about when "homosapiens" made his first appearance on earth is one that can be answered by us only a posteriori. This means that a human answer to this question can, at best, never be more than probabilistic and regarding which one must to some degree remain agnostic. The trick to arriving at the best possible answer, however, is as much as possible to avoid uncritically accepting the pre-theoretical presuppositions of various theories and hypotheses that try to pass themselves off as scientifically demonstrable "fact." Remember what happened to all those Christians who bought into Aristotelian-Ptolmaic cosmology because they took it for "established scientific fact" before the Catholic monk Copernicus came along.
Interested,
I'd also recommend the essay by the Notre Dame philosopher, Alvin Plantinga, which is linked at the end of the post. He addresses several of your concerns in terms of the overriding philosophical assumptions that come into play.
The link to Alvin Plantinga's essay? The essays I have looked at briefly are typical philosophical "goobly gook" i.e. lots of flowery words to fill and sell books/journals and make publishers happy but with no conclusions worth a twit or no conclusions/summaries at all. Schillebeeckx suffers from the same "disease". Even contempory historians of religion like Ray Brown suffer from it.
"Interested,"
Well if your response to Plantinga's essay (if you read it) is to conflate it's content with that of Schillebeeckx and Brown as "gobbly gook," that suggests a couple of things. For one thing, it suggests you may not be too "Interested" after all.
But since I don't want to simply be presumptuous, let me pose my suppositions in the form of questions. First, can you tell me the difference between the kind of concerns Plantinga, as a philosopher, has with this topic, as opposed to Schillebeeckx and Brown, who are theologians? How would you describe that difference? Second, what kind of a philosopher is Plantinga? Is he a phenomenologist, or analytic philosopher? Secular? Christian? Catholic? Protestant? And how might those differences influence his approach to the concerns at hand. Furthermore, who is he writing for? And how might these considerations, along with the heuristic concerns that animate his essay, prevent him from drawing the black-and-white sorts of conclusions proffered by (a) Protestant Fundamentalists, (b) logical empiricists, or (c) positivistic scientists?
Let me assure you of one thing: whatever may be the case with Schillebeeckx and Brown (neither of whom I trust, though both are widely respected scholars), Plantinga is no fluffy featherweight whose work should be dismissed as "gobbly gook." If you study his essay, I think you'll find that he's on the side of the angels.
JP,
You noted "I'd also recommend the essay by the Notre Dame philosopher, Alvin Plantinga, which is linked at the end of the post." The link was not there so I did a quick review via Google but found none that appeared to be what you were referring to.
I did find, in my opinion, the same "overkill"/gobbly gook analogous to all the writers in the field of philosophy, religion, theology and religious history. Crossan in some of his books gets to the point but many do not.
His "The Historical Jesus" is very good and well documented but has no index. His "Birth of Christianity" falls into the category of "run on fluff"
I'm sure you meant "pb," not "JP." 
Oops, make that "pb".
Interested,
If you think Crossan is good, I'm not sure any of this will be of help, since in my opinion he's closer to being a New Age Buddhist under another name than anything resembling a Christian as historically understood.
But if you want to read Plantinga, you don't have to know Rocket Science to find it. It's in the bibliography at the end of the post, in which the items are listed alphabetically.
In fact, here it is for you:
Alvin Plantinga, "When Faith and Reason Clash: Evolution and the Bible," Christian Scholar's Review XXI:1 (September 1991): 8-33.
In case THAT doesn't work, here's the URL: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/dialogues/Faith-reason/
CRS9-91Plantinga1.html.
Scroll down to the part of the essay where he discusses Evolution, for the heart of it.
Dr. Blosser,
Danke Schoen!!
In my opinion, the important comments in the Plantinga's essay are:
"If the question is simple, the answer is enormously difficult. To think about it properly, one must obviously know a great deal of science. On the other hand, the question crucially involves both philosophy and theology: one must have a serious and penetrating grasp of the relevant theological and philosophical issues. And who among us can fill a bill like that? CERTAINLY, I CAN'T. "
"Our grasp of what the Lord proposes to teach us can be faulty and flawed in a thousand ways."
Plantiga's missing summary in my opinion should have been: God initiated the "Big Bang" to include the gifts evolution, free will and future as part of the His/Her expanding, developing universe. Bottom line: We are on our own to make it work and the Twelve Commandments of Christianity and the analogous rules of other good religions will make it so.
Phil,
Two other motives:
(1) It's the only game in town, so rally 'round the flag.
(2) It's beautiful. Not tidy, not efficient like a microprocessor design, but a wild beauty that emerges out of the energy of universal striving. The attempt at poetry is deliberate: beauty and elegance are powerful reasons why scientists get attached to theories. In this case, it's an aesthetic I happen to agree with, though of course it doesn't make any version of evolutionary theory true or false. "No amount of elegance can save a wrong theory" (Murray Gell-Mann).
Dr. Blosser,
Greetings from Jordan. good post and accompanying comments.
Kirk,
Well put. I remember first encountering the imaginary power of the myth of Evolution in Loren Eisley's book, The Immense Journey, which could be described as a poetic eulogy to the Darwinian vision of life and cosmic history. It's not an accident that C.S. Lewis titled an essay in which he addressed this dimension of Darwinism, "The Funeral of a Great Myth."
Blosser, do you also believe that Noah's Ark existed and that the animals went in two by two?
Jesus and St. Peter said Noah's ark existed, so there seem to be pretty strong reasons for Catholics to believe it existed too.
So, by Blosser's logic, and in his own words, when John Paul 2 said that evolution was "more than a hypothesis", the Pontiff must have been "tormented, bullied, or brainwashed".
Non sequitur. "Darwinism" and "evolution" overlap, but are not the same thing. There's also no logical way to get from "Noah's ark was historical" to "evolution is false."
"Lovehandles" --
Among the things which can sensibly be derived from His Holiness' statement is this: Just as feminism is more than a hypothesis, evolution is an ideology used by many to bash the Church.
Jordan, you just created a straw man , as I didnt actually say anything about "Darwinism". The Darwinian model is being constantly tested by the scientific community, and although some of its details are being found wanting, its basic tenets hold true until proven otherwise. Tell you what, you produce some hard peer-reviewed scientific evidence that God actually created the world in six days and I'll join your fundy band of brothers.
"Chris", you also created a nice straw man ... the Pope never said feminism was "more than a hypothesis", and he also never said that evolution was being used to bash the Church, so please try to stick to the facts and not add your own partisan and frankly absurd interpretations thereof.
As for Noah's Ark, the only people I know who have actually attempted to demonstrate the practicality of such a vessel are lunatics like John Woodmorappe and his fellow Protestant evangelical fundamentalists in the Creation Science Research Center.
*S*
Your extreme ignorance is showing. You baselessly assume I'm a fundamentalist proponent of Creationist pseudoscience just because I've pointed out that your reasoning is (as usual, judging from what I've read of you here before) gravely flawed and that Jesus and St. Peter said Noah's ark was real.
You didn't say anything about "Darwinism," but Dr. Blosser did. I replied to you as if you were responding to what Dr. Blosser wrote, but I really knew you weren't.
"Lovehandles" --
You're quite correct that the Pope never said feminism was more than a hypothesis. He did say, however, that translating the Mass must be free of ideological and political influence, which is of its nature contrary to the Church. In this context he lambasted the ideas of "inclusive language", which is one of the foundational theologies of feminism. So, I didn't set up a straw man at all. As to evolution, the Church has not, since Pius XII commented on it in the 1950s, had any problem accepting that evolution is one of the processes by which God allowed creation to develop. However, if science were merely proposing a mechanism rather than positing a world view, the Church would and could openly encourage such research. Thus "more than a hypothesis" could mean sensibly precisely what I suggest. He could also have meant that the scientific evidence (thanks to Watson and Crick, among others) of DNA commonalities among all of creation renders this idea not merely a hypothesis but a serious theory (in the scientific sense). Either way round, my interpretation is plausible.
Jordan, Blosser attacks the "scientific orthodoxy" of evolutionary theory, including but not only Darwinism, and in so doing clearly aligns himself with the Creation Scientists. As neither of you appear to accept the basic principles behind the theory of evolution, and also believe that Noah's Ark was a practical vessel, perhaps you could explain how your own views differ from those of the "pseudo-scientists" at the CRS? What are your views on the reliabilty of carbon dating methods, for example?
Chris, I'm glad that unlike Blosser and Jordan you accept that evolution is a possible way for God to have allowed creation to develop. I think thats the only sensible position for us to adopt.
Lovehandles:
Jordan and Dr. Blosser and I don't disagree. We all accept what the Church has taught on this subject. Read Mediator Dei. Gentlemen, please feel free to correct me if, God forbid, I'm wrong.
"Jordan, Blosser attacks the 'scientific orthodoxy' of evolutionary theory, including but not only Darwinism, and in so doing clearly aligns himself with the Creation Scientists."
From what I can tell, Dr. Blosser rejects the materialist, atheist version of evolution -- the notion that evolution is totally random, unguided, unplanned, and not dependent in any way on divine providence or the Creator's will. I suppose it's possible to interpret Holy Scripture in a fashion that both conforms with the Tradition and does not contradict what modern science appears to show us. Whether the Church will ultimately agree is something I'm in no position to be able to say.
"As neither of you appear to accept the basic principles behind the theory of evolution,"
Where did you get that idea?
"and also believe that Noah's Ark was a practical vessel,"
There's no suggestion in Holy Scripture or the succeeding centuries of Tradition and Magisterium that Noah's ark was a matter of fable. It does make it somewhat, um, difficult for the flood and the ark to prefigure baptism if there never was a flood and an ark. Perhaps the past 2,000 years of Church history have been nothing but a fable as well.
"perhaps you could explain how your own views differ from those of the 'pseudo-scientists' at the CRS?"
Creation "scientists" reject evolution as irreconcilable with Scripture. I do not. They usually believe in a young earth. I do not. They usually see Gen. 1 as a literal account of six literal 24-hour days. I do not. (It's difficult to see how the events related in Gen. 2 could all fit into a few hours on a Friday afternoon.) I do accept the Church's teaching that Eve (or whatever our first mother's name was) was formed from the side of Adam (or whatever our first father's name was), but it seems the Church still allows some leeway on whether or not the first man was specially created or rather was the product of evolution from animals.
However, I personally am not convinced that science has demonstrated that evolution has happened. Maybe it has, and maybe it doesn't contradict the teachings of the Church, but I'm skeptical. I'd need to see more proof.
"What are your views on the reliabilty of carbon dating methods, for example?"
Carbon dating is, overall, a pretty reliable tool, though the older the specimen the less reliable it is, and even with more recent specimens there can be problems that throw off the date, as happened with the Shroud of Turin.
"Jordan and Dr. Blosser and I don't disagree. We all accept what the Church has taught on this subject. Read Mediator Dei. Gentlemen, please feel free to correct me if, God forbid, I'm wrong."
I'm confused. Isn't Mediator Dei on the subject of the Divine Liturgy? Perhaps you meant Humani Generis?
Sorry!
He should read Mediator Dei also.
Chris
Jordan,
In this article Blosser talks about his "undisguised clarity" on the issue of evolution. His faith-driven "clarity" leads him to believe that "if you meet somebody who claims to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."
In passing, why would Mr. Blosser not consider the insanity option? This is intended as an interesting rhetorical deceit, but all it does is demonstrate his mastery of the vernacular of the terminally pompous and self-righteous, and the fear that he may himself be teetering on the brink of sanity.
In idle moments I do also wonder whether Blosser composes his blogs last thing at night or in his lunch breaks, fair enough either way I suppose. However there is also a more specific malaise which enters his logic (perhaps as the serpent wheedled his way into Adam's affections?), namely a rushed and general shoddy intellectual rigour typical of the zealous convert and would-be evangelist.
You can see this in his opinion that "not many well-educated people think that medievals believed the earth was flat" and his subsequent quoting of Aquinas that the earth was in fact round. In fact, Aquinas with his acceptance of a round earth was a (veritable) hippy compared to Blosser with his pre-1968 anti-enlightenment view of a world where everything is literally "flat" and dogmatic, and thus easy to legislate for.
It is also in this zealousness that somebody like Blosser unwittingly (or wittingly?) connects with allies in the Creation Science Research Society, and with American Christian fundamentalists more broadly. The rejection of the theory of evolution is for both a rejection of the physical, and a taking refuge in God.
But is it psychologically healthy to constantly and aggressively focus on an apparently literal message about the fleshy reality and the material evil in the world ? I think Jesus had more to talk about than this.
...
...
Lets face it manly militants, both over-emotional converts to the Catholic faith (like Mr. Blosser) and evangelical creationists feel that they have been "saved", and that they dont need to do anymore good works. "You are right and everybody else can go to Hell" certainly seems to be the general message of this website.
Now, to borrow the authoritative(aryan?) tone so familiar to the Bloss-man, it appears I must re-explain the psychological reasons as to "why" the traditionalists here have adopted this defensive and closed attitude.
Some psychologists have claimed that members of extremist groups determined to impose their truths on others demonstrate personality traits that distinguish them from the majority of “normal” or “healthy” individuals.
One eminent French psychologist describes extreme-right sympathisers as suffering from insecurity and paranoia stemming from childhood trauma in their relationship with their parents. This infantile confusion, whereby the mother represents both the source of all happiness and all evil, is in adulthood projected onto the “Mother country”, the nation, which becomes a substitute for the real mother of the individual in question.
Following the logic of the childhood confusion, the “Mother country” is associated both with an unrealistic ideal, and the inevitable corruption (by the invasive outside forces of modernity in Blosser's case) of this same ideal.
What is needed in this situation is a strong authoritarian “Father figure” (does this ring any bells yet?) to come to the rescue of the mother (country). Needless to say, this father figure often plays on the insecurities of those who invest their hope in him, both by demonising the supposed invasive forces themselves, and by accentuating his own importance as a salvation figure. This is perhaps the main tactic used by extreme-right father figures like, dare I say it, Cardinal Ratzinger.
If one replaced "mother country" with "culturally learned faith" this analysis could be extended to both the Catholic Taliban (or "neo-Caths"?) at this site, and to religious extremists more generally. To be fair, however, in this sense Blosser cannot really be blamed for his literalist stance.
The truth is that he literally feels that he has no time ... he is so enthusiastic about getting to meet his Saviour, that nothing else matters, and thus must be sinful. Like many others, he basically cannot deal with his sinful nature in a mature, adult way. Might I hazard a guess that this is a pretty deep-seated problem related to his early upbringing which would benefit from either a good session in the confessional or (better) professional help.
It goes "Forgive me father ..." etc ...
*S*
Jordan,
One point I am trying to make is that you dont necessarily agree with everything Blosser says, and you should speak up and say so.
Onn example: you yourself say that,
"I suppose it's possible to interpret Holy Scripture in a fashion that both conforms with the Tradition and does not contradict what modern science appears to show us"
In other words you are saying that evolutionary scientists could be good Catholics ... but this is the very antithesis of Blosser's view that "scientific orthodoxy" is automatically an atheist phenomenon.
hmmm ....
correction, that should have been,
"Blosser's view that the orthodoxy of evolutionary science is automatically an atheist phenomenon".
Lovehandles, I would refer you to Dr. Blosser's note at the head of this weblog entry (emphasis added):
[Note: Oxford University Professor Richard Dawkins (pictured left) has an article in Free Inquiry magazine, Vol. 21, No. 3, entitled "Ignorance Is No Crime" (also published in an online edition in the foregoing link). *The following is a parody* and a critique -- pace, Professor Dawkins!]
Jordan,
I note the apologia, but according to the literal blog, Dr. Blosser's (pre-parody) stated opinion was that "if you meet somebody who claims to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."
Did he really write this in the Metaphysical Times, or is it a caricature of his position?
Lovehandles:
Are the last four posts of yours intended to be taken seriously? They sound like so much psychobabble -- vaccuousness with big words designed to intimidate people.
The Catholic convert, far from taking the attitude of "being saved" and therefore not in need of "doing good works", acknowledges the sinfulness of his past life and, in most cases, embraces the Cross of Calvary precisely because he recognizes that the gift of salvation has been offered to him IN SPITE OF his past, present and presumed future evil conduct.
If he wants to share such relief with you, that isn't a sign of infantilism or conflicted childhood or any other such nonsense. It is, in fact, a desire to share his joy and relief with you. If you choose to be miserable, why brand him with psychobabble?
Lovehandles, follow Dr. Blosser's hyperlink to Dawkins' hyperventilated polemic, "Ignoance Is No Crime." This is what you will find:
*****
Ignorance Is No Crime
by Richard Dawkins
Photo by Lalla Ward
--------------------------------------------------
-
The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 21, Number 3.
--------------------------------------------------
-
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." I first wrote that in a book review in the New York Times in 1989, and it has been much quoted against me ever since, as evidence of my arrogance and intolerance. Of course it sounds arrogant, but undisguised clarity is easily mistaken for arrogance. Examine the statement carefully and it turns out to be moderate, almost self-evidently true.
*****
Do you not see any similarities between what Dawkins wrote and what our kindly host wrote in his parody? I don't know if Dr. Blosser ever wrote that in Metaphysical Times in 1989, but my guess is that he didn't -- note the year 1989, and the name of the publications -- New York Times, Metaphysical Times. I think it's safe to say that we are not meant to take Dr. Blosser literally here. Rather, he is mimicking the offensive, bigoted, small-minded, fundamentalistic utterances of Richard Dawkins.
Chris, you devoted far more attention to Lovehandles' Pharisaical armchair psychoanalysis than I deem it deserves. I decided to just ignore it.
Jordan:
It occured to me that perhaps he genuinely doesn't understand Catholic converts -- but manages to rail against them in ignorance. So I thought I would portray a typical picture of a convert. Being a convert and knowing many who have had similar experiences and who feel the same way, I thought it might diffuse the senseless drivel, cut to the chase, and use information rather than uninformed polemic.
We will see whether or not I failed.
Jordan,
"we are not meant to take Dr. Blosser literally here. Rather, he is mimicking the offensive, bigoted, small-minded, fundamentalistic utterances of Richard Dawkins"
I am glad you agree that if Blosser actually believed what he wrote he would be guilty of the same sins as Dawkins.
nb. is the anti-evolution bibliography Blosser supplies intended to be a parody as well?
i'm thoroughly lost now ....
It's okay, lovehandles -- we all have our bad days, and there are those times when we misread utterly someone's intent. Don't kick yourself over it.
My guess is that the anti-Darwinist bibliography is in the "critique" part of this weblog post, not the "parody" part.
One wonders -- is Gather Faithfully Together meant to be a parody?
Jordan,
I dont think I misunderstood his intent as such, rather I was confused by the inconsistent and unflagged mid-narrative switch from parody to critique.
Actually, I'm rather dissappointed that none of you traditionalists seems to believe in a young earth. We could have had a really heated discussion in that case.
After doing some research into Blosser's bibliography (too much time on my hands? a typical traditionalist critique!), I find the following rebuttals of William Dembski's work, which I do so hope are not true:
First up we have the award-winning biologist Wesley Elsberry's remarks that,
"Despite the promotional hype, [Dembski's] No Free Lunch is not a work that will disestablish evolutionary biology. Its arguments, especially where they touch upon evolutionary algorithms and actual biology, betray a superficiality of acquaintance with those fields. It is an important book, however, in the sense that it represents the best that the 'Intelligent Design' movement has to offer. [Dembski] can be counted upon to make the most interesting errors of any of the current 'Intelligent Design' proponents. But for those who are looking for a 'magic bullet' to oppose evolution, the ammo of No Free Lunch is a dud."
... and then there we have the critique of Dembski's work by Elliott Sober, the Hans Reichenbach Professor and William F. Vilas Research Professor of Philosophy at the University of Wisconsin,
"Dembski stated in his book No Free Lunch: "The No Free Lunch theorems show that evolutionary algorithms, apart from careful fine-tuning by a programmer, are no better than blind search and thus no better than pure chance." This control experiment shows that when the ev program is run without selection there is no information increase. Therefore we can attribute the information increases observed with selection entirely to that selection. In other words, an evolutionary algorithm does far better (almost 13 standard deviations!) than 'pure chance' which is the situation when there is no selection. This falsifies Dembski's statement about No Free Lunch Theorems."
Both of these learned scientists appear to have better jobs than Mr. Blosser. I wonder why?
You guys are still trying to "measure" God by some quantifiable scientific criteria, but in so doing you are only contradicting all the most serious research on the matter.
This is a serious point, as if you cannot at least remain open to quantifiably and falsifiable new scientific theories about the material world, then you might as well be living in Copernicus' time.
As we all know you cant put limits on God, so maybe Quantum physics is the place you should be looking?
That might also give you some insight into how the Logos expresses itself throughout creation, in humanity rather than dogma, in a profoundly "ecumenical" rather than an exclusively biblical sense.
It really doesnt matter whether or not we can "detect" "Intelligent Design" : the creation will always remain a mystery, just as God Himself is a mystery.
I would however agree with the view that Dawkins himself can be a bit of an extremist when it comes to the evolution/creation debate.
The British writer Brian Appleyard describes Dawkins thus,
"He is a highly strung, frequently petulant man. I’ve seen him storm out of an amiable dinner because he didn’t like the music and I’ve heard of him muttering to his companion, when a lady cleric entered the room, that dog collars are always a sign of low IQ. But when relaxed, he is charming, deferring politely to opinions with which he disagrees and displaying a conscientious desire to understand"
Moral of the tale: I do wonder what shared psychological impulses drove Dawkins and Blosser to be so similar.
Anyway, Blosser is simply projecting his own extremism upon Dawkins. This is made easier by the fact that Dawkins is himself an extremist 
As we all know, its always easier to attack the man rather than the argument, as we have seen so clearly in the treatment of Father Joe in here.
I also know that according to this blog the worst sin a man can commit is to be "secularised".
What, however, does it mean to be "secularised"? Well, if it means paying attention to a proven and falsifiable scientific methodology rather than unrealistic pseudo-scientific claims about (for example) the viability of Noah's Ark, then I for one am fully secularised.
... unless Noah's ark counts as a miracle?
"Actually, I'm rather disappointed that none of you traditionalists seems to believe in a young earth. We could have had a really heated discussion in that case."
Sorry we don't live down to your expectations. But I'm not surprised that you're disappointed. I've yet to see much evidence that you know what you're talking about. After all, to know what you're talking about, you'd have to have psychic powers.
Jordan,
And I'm not surprised (given your own psychological profile) that you fail to accept an analysis based on sound psychological principles.
"And I'm not surprised (given your own psychological profile) that you fail to accept an analysis based on sound psychological principles."
You missed your calling as a humorist. At least I hope you were joking. For your sake, I hope you don't really believe that it is possible to talk seriously about "psychological profiles" of persons of whom you know virtually nothing, whom you've never met, and whom you have no qualifications whatsoever to psycholanalyse. I've suspected that you're a clown, because I'd prefer not to conclude that really think you can read people's minds. Maybe you have a special keyboard or something. But no, you're just making wild guesses, and so far as I can tell, you still haven't guessed what Dr. Blosser's "psychological profile" is, let alone mine. You've done a spectacularly poor job of guessing what my beliefs are too, so I'd find it highly entertaining to learn what you think my "psychological profile" is. So why don't you peer into your crystal ball and tell us what you see?
Jordan,
Yes, I do think it is both possible, and essential. The police do this kind of thing all the time. They build up a psychological profile of a potential suspect, and that allows them to get their man.
There are certain key elements common to the fundamentalist mindset, and serious research has been done into it. The only reason you havent been locked up yet or deported to the Vatican is because you aren't any kind of threat to anybody except yourself and your own family.
Ah, so I have a "fundamentalist" mindset, eh? I knew your next blurt would be great for laughs. Lovehandles, if I'm a fundamentalist, then you must be a grass-skirted, bone-through-the-nosed Molech-worshipping androphage.
"Locked up"? "Deported to the Vatican"?? Where do you live, anyway? China??
I notice that Lovehandles sidestepped the question of whether or not he has any qualifications to build psychological profiles of people based only on statements they make on the internet -- not unexpected, given his poor track record here.
I know police build profiles of suspects that helps them narrow down who their culprits might be -- that works because sin is a flat and a boring, unoriginal, uninteresting thing, drearily repetitive. But it doesn't work all that well on the law-abiding, because good is infinitely variable. No one has ever been able to build the psychological profile of "the typical Catholic saint," because there isn't just one single profile of sainthood.
Well, as long as Lovehandles has been providing so much fun today, howzabout he tells us what he thinks his own mindset or psychological profile is?
I know next to nothing about psychology, except that there are more syndromes floating about nowadays than we can shake a stick at, and that under political, rather than scientific pressure the APA removed homosexuality from its list of disorders about 30 years ago.
As a historian, however, I have always distrusted people who claim to be able to get inside important men in history (Henry VIII's complexes, for example, apparently explain his difficulty staying married). This is generally referred to as "Psycho History", but since we can't reliably get inside the minds of the living, it seems improbably barren to propose to get inside the minds of the dead. Modern categories almost always get imposed on dead people; those categories usually don't make much sense.
As a linguist, I recognize the value of the particular words used in an argument. The term "Fundamentalist", just like the word "Extremist" isn't intended to describe a particular position which can be defended or even addressed. It is, usually, intended to brand someone as beyond the pale, not worthy of having a civilized argument. "Extremists" in the Republican party are all Pro-life, as if being in favor of letting folks live is an extreme position. "Fundamentalist" protestants are contrasted with "mainstream" protestants. The former have unpopular positions, whereas the latter have currently popular positions.
All this said, I'll take Lovehandles challenge. A "young earth" approach is possible, but not necessary. If the Earth is in fact only 6000 years old (or so) evolution is recognizably impossible, at least without God. Even at 41/2 billion years, as more than one statistician has demonstrated, the Earth hasn't had enough time to allow PURELY random evolution to take place. So God is necessary to guide the process and allow what are called "quantum evolutionary leaps" or something similar.
I won't worship at the altar of modern science, even as I respect legitimate science for the insights it can provide. This doesn't mean I believe that the Earth is 6000 years old, but I accept that, as God understands these things and communicated them to the human instruments who wrote the Bible, such an understanding is possible. This doesn't make me some luddite. It makes me someone who tries to reconcile the language of Scripture with the scientific evidence. Now, since Piltdown Man and others have proven to be hoaxes, why exactly do we trust science uncritically?
Jordan,
As somebody who has spent the past seven years studying extremism in all its forms, yes I do feel qualified to comment on your psychological profile. Of course extremists from different groups differ in the details, but there are certain common threads. Would you like me to enumerate tham again for you?
Chris,
As a historian yourself you should know that since the beginning of this academic discipline historians have been trying to "get into the heads" of their subjects. That they have largely succeeded can also be evinced in a linguistic cross-fertilisation with the disciple on Psychology : hence the common and accepted usage of search terms as "Napoleon complex" etc.
I do agree that "fundamentalist" and especially "extremist" can have negative connotations, although not in all cases (American evangelical protestants for example are often very happy to describe themselves as "fundamentalists").
However, these words are also the common linguistic currency of political scientists and psychologists who study these phenomena.
nb. nobody is asking you to trust science uncritically. The reason for the Piltdown man etc. hoaxes is that some scientists, like some self-professed Catholics, are liars and self-publicising frauds. Despite this fact of life the actual discipline of science has certain inbuilt methodological safety mechanisms (falsifiability etc.), and furthermore I believe it was actually other scientists themselves who uncovered the hoaxes you refer to.
sorry, heres that first paragraph again ...
As a historian yourself you should know that since the beginning of this academic discipline historians have been trying to "get into the heads" of their subjects. That they have largely succeeded can also be evinced in a linguistic cross-fertilisation with the DISCIPLINE of Psychology : hence the common and accepted usage of SUCH terms as "Napoleon complex" etc.
bloody American keyboard ...
"As somebody who has spent the past seven years studying extremism in all its forms, yes I do feel qualified to comment on your psychological profile."
Which is all we need to know that you are unqualified to comment on anyone's psychological profile. If you had any credentials, you'd not attempt to psychoanalyse someone you've never met and of whom you know practically nothing. You don't know who I am, and everything you think you know is based only on things I've said here. So far your guesses have been way off. It's clear to me that you can't do what only saints with the spiritual gift of reading hearts can do.
"Of course extremists from different groups differ in the details, but there are certain common threads. Would you like me to enumerate them again for you"
Again? I don't recall your enumerating them before. But no, I'm not interested in your opinion of what sort of an extremist I supposedly am. That you think I am an extremist reflects exceedingly poorly on you. You're not interested in finding things out, because you already magically know. It's just another way to avoid the issues -- change the subject from the ideas to the one who believes the ideas. I suppose that way you can feel confident and safe that you're superior to us ignorant extremist Catholics who actually believe what the Church teaches, and not have to explain why your beliefs don't mesh with the teachings of the Church. Well, that's my own armchair psychoanalysis, I guess -- it's at least as likely to be true as your guesses have been.
So, Lovehandles, when will you tell us what sort of an extremist you think you are?
Jordan,
Historians never meet the subjects of their research either, but maybe you want to discount the whole discipline of historical biography now?
In fact, I have quite extensive first-hand experience of the defensive and intolerant mindset prevalent at this blog, not to mention the passive aggression and tribal mentality.
To answer your question, I am sure you could categorise me as a "fundamentalist liberal" or some such ... thats exactly what Young Earthers say about serious scientists.
*S*
Jordan,
To clear things up, I certainly dont feel superior to you in any important way. Better educated, perhaps, more in tune with the Spirit of Vatican 2, granted ... but superior, never!
Since you've espoused positions that the Church rejects, there's no doubt you're not all that in tune with the Spirit of Vatican II, unless you're referring to Fr. O'Leary.
So far as I can tell, it seems your objections to my mindset boil down to the fact that I disagree with you and have stated my agreement with the Catholic faith. Diagnose it as an illness or as aberrant, unhealthy behavior if you like.
Jordan,
Thanks, I will do just that.
Commenting by HaloScan
