Christianity and the changing of the Mazeways.

Anthony FC Wallace (1923-2015)

For years I would see strange opinions popping up on message boards, evangelicals are forgetting the gospel, I was not the first to post one of those messages. I first regarded it as New Atheist slander.I soon joined the ranks of such prophets, however, yet no one listened because we were just cranks on a message board. After what we have seen over the last seven months* it seems absurd for anyone to question it, People keep asking how can it be that Evangelicals would forget to be Evangelical?" The answer is provided by historian Wayne Flynt of Auburn University, and the answer is obvious, they are changeling. Flyant his devoted his life to studying his fellow southerners: Flynt’s answer is that his people are changing. The words of Jesus, as recorded in the Gospels, are less central to their thinking and behaviour, he says. Church is less compelling. Marriage is less important. Reading from a severely abridged Bible, their political concerns have narrowed down to abortion and issues involving homosexuality. Their faith, he says, has been put in a president who embodies an unholy trinity of materialism, hedonism and narcissism. Trump’s victory, in this sense, is less an expression of the old-time religion than evidence of a move away from it....[Flynt says] 'Arguably, what has constituted white evangelical Christian morality for 200 years no longer matters, which is to say we’re now a lot like Germany, a lot like France, a lot like England, a lot like the Netherlands, and what we have is a sort of late-stage Christian afterglow.'[1]

How could people so committed to a value system and way of life, a world view, the Bible,Jesus,change? Everyone I know still talks about how unbelievable it all is,Not just Evangelicals going for and becoming completely sold out to a a man who embodies the antithesis of all that they stand for, not only the election to the Presidency of a totally unqualified clown, not only that he fundies vest this man with an anointing that makes him seem almost divine in their minds, but also the decline of Western civilization, the resurgence of racism and the seeming collapse of ordinary civilizing norms. But we need not be puzzled. it's all explained by going back to my old sociology days.There is a sociological theory, which I will discuss, that accounts for this change, That is explained by a theory in sociology of religion, the theory of "the Mazeways" by Anthony F.C. Wallace. An Anthropologist was born In 1923 in Toronto he died in 2015 in Pennsylvania, where he went to school (University of Penn 1950). Wallace began working on his general theory, the Theory of "Revitalization Movements" (RM) in the late 40s as a student with a paper on the Delaware tribe of native Americans. By the earlly 90s his theory was well developed and largely accepted, having it's major period of development in the 60s. [2]

A RM is a deliberate, organized, conscious effort by members of a society to construct a more satisfying culture. Politico-religious movements arise in periods of great social stress promising deliverance from deprivation, foreign domination, social exploitation,or conflicts over colonialism, economic exploitation and racial conflict; these movements employ new transformations of spirit based upon reshuffling of old cultural vales, which seem to have failed. The classic example is the native American ghost dance, which Wallace studied. Wallace also studied the Delaware in early fomentation of his theory,[3] [4]

Wallace's theory began as a theory about native American culture and religious movements. It deal with visionary leaders with ecstatic experiences. But he was not just applying hunter gatherer culture to post industrial society. He also studied Christianity and Islam and used modern examples of American Society. Wallace has developed a full array of methodologies from field work to participant observer,to laboratory experiment, to archival etnohisotry.[5] The result is that he has become of the most commonly sited social scientists, accepted by every major social science field and considered one of the true greats of anthropology. [6] After re-mainspring his theory after all these years I think he is the only one who really explains what is going on in terms of the sense that everything is falling apart. Moreoer in the 60s Luthar Gaqrloch and Virginia Hines applied Wallace's theory favorably to the study of Pentecostalism and Black Power movements, He took a paradigmatic approach from Thomas Kuhn and studied the effects of technology on modern society.[7]

The Theory in thumbnail

RMs start in times of stress, they occur during times of disillusionment or disappointment.It is a process in which the people involved see their culture as a system that has let them down and is no longer working for them.The classic processes of cultural change are evolution, drift, diffusion, historical change, acculturation and all these produce changes in cultures as systems; however, these changes may not be the result of deliberate intention of the member of that society, but rather a gradual chain-reaction effect. The process cascades effecting multiple other changes and spurring more reaction.

Stages in the movement

There are several stages in the movement I wont bother to go into but I will highlight the crucial stages that I think really speak to our time. There is a steady state (that's a stage in the theory) where people become depressed, crumble under the new situations and it becomes the new normal. They go through increased individual stress then hit the stage of cultural distortion. The state of cultural distortion is significant, In that period people are trying to find new solutions and old elements such as values and traditions that were once comforting are abandoned or compete with each other or changed in ways previously thought unimaginable,[8]

Mazeways (yes, one word) are crucial here because it is mazeway change that creates much of the stress and it is mazeway change that people try playing with and manipulating to understand the new situation.For example sex, drugs, rock and roll. But mazeway shift creates more stress.[9] Mazeways are the links that enable the individual to connect with the larger culture through her understanding of daily life. They include things as innocent as table manners to things as serious as the moral code, For example the idea of being a law abiding citizen, having a social time table and career plan, playing by the rules, seeking conventional rewrds of good behvior. These are marked by things like style and career path all of these are mnazeways,

Mazeway Reformation is crucial and it applies to either secular movements or religiosity. The individual's understanding no longer correlates with that of the culture, appropriate example, someone who believes one goes to hell for being gay suddenly sees gay marriages around her

. The leader

Within the context of organization of the movement, Wallace evokes sociologist Max Weber's notion of the "charismatic leader." The prophet is a chrism tic leader endued with special status and abilities, He relates his vision to concerts and they accept him absolutely. "As God is to the Prophet so the Prophet is (almost) the follopwrs"[10] Don't forget Wallace's primary data applies to native American culture so he says the prophet and many of his followers will have ecstatic experiences. But the theory has also been applied to modern secular society. The leader "is regarded as an uncanny person of unquestionable authority in one or more spheres of leadership sanctioned by the supernatural...followers defer to the charismatic leader not because of his status in an existing authority structure but because of a facilitating personal power."[11]

In Wallace's theory a society is like an organism,Its a living entity meaning it's dynamic,is compassed of various members and parts which fomentation together and work in certain ways. That dynamic includes tensions and conflicts and times of stress occur there are cascades of effect that lead to social breakdown, When the system is seen not to function the movement begins.

What Wallace calls internal incongruities of the Mazeways it leads to anxiety and loss of meaningful way of life disillusionment with the Mazeways sets in. "This process of deterioration can, if not checked,lead to the death of society."[12] Society is an organism with parlous parts,when when society is seen as dysfunctional organism and has let people down,they fail to accomplish their preconditioned traditional expectations. I interprit the theory to mean that a given subset of the society can have a revitalization movement or can off, or the same principles could be applied to a whole nation.

Applying the theory to the current situation

RMs promise deliverance from deprivation, foreign domination, social exploitation,or conflicts over "colonialism, economic exploitation and racial conflict;" these are reflected and named in the literature (fn3-4) These were issues in the last presidential election. America as the colonial power not as the colony figures into the conflict with illegal aliens and the boarder wall, especially the idea of Mexico to pay for the wall. Fear of foreign domination certainly figured into the campaign

. Certainly the bit about the Charismatic leader applies, supernatural aid. Even though Trump has not had ecstatic experiences he has been vested with sanctifying Grace by his followers and is practically worshiped in some quarters. Televangelists have declared that anyone trying to thwart Trump will dealt with by God and Trump is Gods man. The uncanny acceptance of Trump's unchristian manner are explained by the e shuffle of the mazeways, the rules are suspended for the leader, he's too important because his mission is so vital, to make the culture work again for the deprived. The talk of make America great again and take America back are indicative of the shift of mnazeways the culture is broken they can/t find their way

. We can explaimn why old people are racist and why they are reacting for Trump, They lived for years in silent defeat by civil rights moment, But why are young people dedicated to alt right and racism? A minority of young people are alienated, and racist. Trump's vocabulary was a statistical fluke spread over a few states.[13]Yet, that minority of disaffected racists could be virulent, They may have been raised on the reshuffled mazeways of the Reagan era then we never got a chance to change the educational system,which Trump is understudying all the more.

The issue is not as simple as racism vs democrats. There are lots of overstates who are not racist, I think the revitalization movement theory exclaims the evangelical's change. a lot of middle age to older people who were raised on the model of abide by the law, follow the rules be a church goer and you will get rich, the American dream. That mazeway as been changed shuffled distorted. collapsed and otherwise mutilated. There has been a persist amt substitute growing on talk radio,

In The U.S. We have had a succession of revitalize movements starting with the 60s counter culture,then the Reagan counter revolution then the Obama answer to economic collapse, now the Trump vacation from sanity, That's a lot of Maseway shifting and it has bred anew generation of antisocial people who never knew the old maszeways and there are still a lot of hold overs who are alienated American dream types.

*First published:June 05, 2019. Sources

[1] Gary Silverman, "How the Bible Belt Lost God and Found Trump," Financial Times (APRIL 13, 2017) On line version (access 9/14/17) URL: https://www.ft.com/content/b41d0ee6-1e96-11e7-b7d3-163f5a7f229c

[2] Encyclopedia Britannica, Volume 8; Vol. 12 (15 ed.) Encyclopedia Britannica ISBN 0852296339

[3] Anthony F.C. Wallace and ed. Robert S. Grumet, Revitalization and Mazeways: Essays on Cultural Change Vol 1 Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press 2003, 9-12..

In 1956 Wallace published a seminal paper "Revitalization Movements that really began his theory as a coherent whole, which was at that time a theory about Native American culture.

[4] Encyclopedia.com. "The Revitalization Movmeent" The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Copyright The Columbia University Press, no date given, (acess 8/13/17) URL http://www.encyclopedia.com/philosophy-and-religion/other-religious-beliefs-and-general-terms/religion-general/revitalization

[5] Robert S. Grumet, "Foreword," Revitalization and Mazeways, op. cit., x

. [6] Ibid, vi

i [7] 5

[8] Wallas 10-16

[9] 16

[10] Wallace, op cit, 21

[11] Ibid

[12] Ibid 16

[13] CHAUNCEY DEVEGA. "Are younger Whites Less Raciost? New Research..." Salon (Dec 20,2016) http://www.salon.com/2016/12/20/will-young-people-save-us-new-research-into-the-racial-attitudes-of-young-whites-suggests-its-not-that-simple/ Posted by Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) at 9:51 AM

Jesus Christ copy cat savior ? Dionysian Mysteries

Dionysian Mysteries

1) Dionysus was not born of a virgin.

The Greek god Dionysus is said to be the god of wine, actually he began as a fertility god in Phrygia and in Macedonia, Thrace, and other outlying regions. The origin of the cult is probably in Asia. (Charles Seltman, The Twelve Olympians, New York: Thomas Y. Corwell Company, 1960.)

"In the myths about Dionysus the most important is the tale of his birth. His mother was Semele...in fact she was an earth goddess...the usual form of the story is that Zeus loved Semele and consorted with her...." (Ibid, 171). Hera, of course was jealous and tricked the girl into asking Zeus to show himself to her in his true from. She was fried by his thunderbolts which cannot help but constantly shoot from his true form, but Zeus was able to save the child that she carried. I can find no authority who says that Dionysus mother was a virgin. But this is one of the tricky ones, she may have known no mortal man, but she was not the product of virginal conception. She was also not mortal herself, so the idea of her having a Virginal conception is out of the question, because whatever she did would be supernatural anyway, and we don't' know what gods she dated before Zeus.

2) Dionysus not laid in a manger.

There is one very tiny aspect of a manger-like thing in the Dionysus myth, and it is not very central. A flower basket which could double as a crib was used as one of many fertility symbols. In fact there is no real manger connection at all. Near the end of the 5th century BC the Greek Euripides wrote a play, The Bacchae, one of the major sources of Dionysian mysteries. I've seen skeptics claim that he was laid in a manger at his birth. But he was not, he was laid in Zeus's thigh until he came to term and there is no manger scene at all (Stelman,171).

3) Title "Son of god" Other similarities.

Euripides does refer to Dionysus as "son of god." But that is just profanatory. In mythology gods were like people, they were born, they had parents, and they lived in families. Why? Probably because people do. The phrase "son of god" and the general concept may be "influenced" by paganism in a general sense (see above) but the specific notion of Jesus' incarnation is totally different. Jesus is the incarnation of the divine logos, the second person of the Trinity, God incarnate. He is the incarnation of the rational that created the universe; not a mythological demigod, the offspring of a god and mortal. Besides that, the term "Son of God" in Judaism of Jesus' day was understood as a Euphemism for the Messiah.

4) Dionysus Dying and Rising.

In some stories Dionysus is torn apart by the Titans. In other stories it is Hera's orders that he be torn apart. But he was torn apart, not crucified. Moreover, since he was not an historical figure he was not a flesh and blood man. He did not really die, and his resurrection is not really bodily. His dying and rising are an echo of the death of plant life and fertility in winter and his rising is the rising of the plants in the Spring. "He was the vine which is always pruned as nothing else which bears its fruit; every branch cut away, only the bare stock left, through the winter a dead thing to look at...he was always brought back to life..." (Edith Hamilton, Mythology, Mentor edition, original copywriter 1940, pp. 61-62). Hamilton says that his rising did offer hope of new life, the immortality of the soul. "He was the assurance that death does not end all."

But this is very different from the historical claims of Christ's resurrection. Dionysus did not have an historical existence, no empty tomb, no flesh and blood body seen and felt by witnesses afterward. He is merely the archetype suggested by seasons, the human wish for a rejuvenation and the circularity of nature.

"In Christianity everything is made to turn on a dated experience of a historical Person; it can be seen from I Cor. XV. 3 that the statement of the story early assumed the form of a statement in a Creed. There is nothing in the parallel cases which points to any attempt to give such a basis of historical evidence to belief" A. D. Nock (Early Gentile Christianity and Its Hellenistic Background", 1964, p. 107).

5) Not a savior

Moreover, the followers of Dionysus did not gain their sense of eternal life from Dionysus himself, nor form his death, but from their own drunken ecstasy in the "Béchamel." (Yamauchi, in "Easter: Myth, Hallucination or History," and c.f. M. Nilsson, The Dionysiac Mysteries of the Hellenistic and Roman Age, 1957).

His death was not an atonement and his resurrection has not even the semblance of an historical, much less history making aspect. But perhaps it was a dress rehearsal.

6) Moreover, he was not crucified as Till claims but instead was torn apart by the Titans.

Trump's war on breathing

This essay was written during the Trump Presdiency I think it is important to think about it now.

One major crime of the Trump Presidency was Trump's war on EPA.

We can quantify how many lives Trump's lattest scheme will end. That scheme being the repeal of Major Obama era carbon emissions rules. "The Environmental Protection agency announced on Tuesday that Scott Pruitt, the Chief of the agency, had signed a measure to repeal President Barack Obama's signature policy to curb greenhouse gas emissions from power plants...." [1]

The Clean Air Task Force (CATF) has studied the effects of fine particle emissions from power plants since the year 2000. These are empirical scientific epidemiological studies. There are now 7,500 deaths each year from power plant emissions. [2] This may sound like a lot but its actually down by 50% from the time before the Obama regs,

In 2000, 2004 and again in 2010, the Clean Air Task Force issued studies based on work by Abt Associates quantifying the deaths and other adverse health affects attributable to the fine particle air pollution resulting from power plant emissions. Using the most recent emissions data, in this 2014 study, CATF examines the continued progress towards cleaning up one of the nation's leading sources of air pollution. This latest report finds that over 7,500 deaths each year are attributable to fine particle pollution from U.S. power plants. This represents a dramatic reduction in power plant health impacts from the previous studies....Our 2004 study showed that power plant impacts exceeded 24,000 deaths a year, but by 2010 that had been reduced to roughly 13,000 deaths due to the impact that state and federal actions were beginning to have. The updated study shows that strong regulations that require stringent emission controls can have a dramatic impact in reducing air pollution across the country, saving lives, and avoiding a host of other adverse health impacts. The study also shows regrettably that some areas of the country still suffer from unnecessary levels of pollution from power plants that could be cleaned up with the application of proven emission control technologies.[3]

The 2004 study showed 24,000 deaths a year, I show above its down to 7,500, that's 17,000 lives a year saved by the regs!. [4] Market forces are moving us away from Coal. There is no question this will be, power plants are closing and the large industry is committed to it. Coal Fired energy in US has fallen from 51% in 2008 to 30% in 2016. [5] The market story creates a complex issue. The question becomes how much, how soon? We can retard the drift away from coal as Trump is trying to do,or we can facilitate moving to more healthy sources of energy that furnish employment.  Neither candidate in the election had the presence of mind to say that. The shift has meant 80% less sulfur dioxide, 64% less nitrogen oxide, 34% less carbon dioxide [6] For those who don't know those things are  not good to breath.

Those who are oppose to saving lives will always argue jobs. the Trade-off, jobs vs breathing. Jobs will always win, We see this in the election. of Trump. The Koch brothers (Charles and David sons of Fred C.) and other billionaires have orchestrated a huge grass roots campaign that started long before the election,It was working overtime during Obama's time as the rightful  president. That movement produced the bedrock of Trump's support.[7]

It involved a massive public relations campaign taking over local news broadcasting across the country plus grass roots ralleys. They fomented the lie that science is undecided about climate change [8]and since climate change can't be proven to be caused by humans the greatest risk is in disturbing our wonderful life style which allows the K boys and Trump to get richer. They fostered the image among these grass roots types that science and climate change and pollution are just fancy ideas by egg heads or the cultural elite who can afford to control their so corralled "carbon foot prints," ":whatever that is" (nudge nudge).Trump's second  phase of EPA destruction has been replaced by anti-EPA people  Trump has put in charge of the agency,

The old time administrators are angry and depressed and some long time officials retired or were fired by Trump. they were then dismissed as "disgruntled" but they report the agency is being destroyed from  within,[9] "Scott Pruitt, a fierce defender of fossil fuels, is on a crusade to gut the environmental agency he now leads..They can now toast Scott Pruitt in coal country, perhaps with plastic flutes of toxic rain. Tuesday brought what New Yorker writer Jane Mayer has called the “triumph of the anti-environmental movement.” It’s a triumph you can watch on Wednesday’s installment of PBS’ Frontline." (see fn 8) [10]Pruitt was not merely a critique of the EPA he advocated eliminating it and now he has his chance.

It's not just limited to power plants, in April OP ED published "Trump's War On EPA Continues in which we said,

U.S. automakers may not have to reach fuel efficiency standards that were set during President Obama's administration, as the Environmental Protection Agency says it's reopening a review of the rules.President Trump is expected to make that announcement Wednesday in meetings with auto industry executives and workers in Michigan.In Washington, a senior White House official said the president wants to "set standards that are technologically feasible, economically feasible and allow the auto industry to grow and create jobs."The Obama-era rules stemmed from an agreement the government reached with major vehicles in the summer of 2011, setting carbon dioxide emissions targets for passenger cars and light trucks that were equivalent to the industry's fleet of achieving an average of 54.5 miles per gallon by the 2025 model year.The reopening of the rules review comes after a request from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, an industry group that represents both domestic and foreign automakers. The group's request came last month, after the confirmation of Scott Pruitt as EPA administrator. [read More] [11]

Studies show the situation is even more alarming with auto emissions than with power plants. The new MIT study puts auto emission deaths at 50,000/yr [12] including powerboats and other sources it goes up to to 200,000/yr! [13]

Of course the big counter argument will always be jobs, supposedly breathing costs us jobs. There two levels of argument, the more abstract level asserts that economic efficiency equals job growth and anything that costs profits is inefficient. The pragmatic level merely asserts that clean energy cant sustain employment, both are totally wrong. Energy fro solar will employ 79 times the labor force of coal. [14] The entire renewable energy industry is more labor intensive than fossil fuel technology. Wind energy alone already employs 75,000 workers in the U.S. [15]

John Kenneth "Ken" Galbraith, in The New Industrial State, [16] tells us that the bench mark economic efficiency is not written in stone but can be measured anyway we choose to measure it. We choose to measure it in terms of profit margin because those who own the means of production want it that way. They don't value human life so they don't consider that 200,000 as anything but Collateral damage. Economic efficiency could me measured in terms of our ability to supply vital resources to those who need them. As log as we allow those who put profits over lives our efforts to support a vital economy will be negated, We might have jobs but those we seek to support will die of cancer caused by the jobs we do to support them. We need to endure government regulation as long as the wonders of production don't care who they kill to get richer. We need to vote in a government that will regulate pollution.



update: " Today, April 25 (2024), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced a suite of final rules to reduce pollution from fossil fuel-fired power plants in order to protect all communities from pollution and improve public health without disrupting the delivery of reliable electricity."[17]

Sources

[1] Lisa Friedman and Brad Plumer, "E.P.A. Announces Repeal of Major Obama-Era Carbon Emissions Rule," New  York Times, (OCT. 9, 2017) on line ed. 
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/09/climate/clean-power-plan.html?smid=fb-share
(accessed 10/11/17)

[2] Clean Air Task Force, Clean Air Task Force 114 State Street 6th Floor Boston, MA 02109 

• Joseph Chaisson, Research and Technical Director, http://www.catf.us/fossil/problems/power_plants/
• (accessed 10/11/17)
• board of directors: http://www.catf.us/about/board/
• (accessed 10/11/17)
• Jeff Gleason, Board Chairman, Deputy Director, Southern Environmental Law Center
  Charlottesville, VA
• Deputy Director, Southern Environmental Law Center
  Charlottesville, VA
• [3] Ibid
  
  
  [4] Ibid
• [5] Union of Concerned Scientists, "A Dwindling Role for Coal." UCS website, no date or author given.http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/coal-transition#.Wd9twvlSzIU
• (accessed 10/11/17)
• [6] Ibid
• [7] Patrice Tadonio, "War o EPA," Fontline, PBS aired Oct. 11,2017
• http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/this-was-a-hostile-takeover-how-the-war-on-the-epa-was-waged/ (accessed 10/13/17)
• [8] Joseph Hnman, "Climate Change: the 97% Solution," Metacrock's blog. (feb 9. 2017)
• http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2017/02/climate-change-97-solution.html (accessed 10/15/17)
• [9] Frontline op cit
• [10] James Warren, "The Climate Change Skeptic Leading Trump's War on EPA." Vanity Fair (Oct. 11.2017)
• https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/10/scott-pruitt-war-on-the-epa (accessed 10/12/17)
• [11] Joseph Hinman, "Trump's War on EPA Continues," Resistance is Not Futile, OPED, (April 17, 2017) https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1105458450094819345#allposts/src=sidebar  (accessed 10/13/17)
• [12] Christopher Mims, "More Americans Die from Car Pollution Than From car Accidents," Quartz(Oct 15, 2013).
• https://qz.com/135509/more-americans-die-from-car-pollution-than-car-accidents/ 
• (accessed 10/13/17)
• [13] Jennifer Chu. "Study: Air Pollution kills 200,000 early Deaths Each Year in The US," MIT News, Mass. Institute  Technology (Aug 2012)
• http://news.mit.edu/2013/study-air-pollution-causes-200000-early-deaths-each-year-in-the-us-0829 (accessed 10/13/17)
• [14]Mark Perry, "Inconvenient energy fact: It takes 79 solar workers to produce same amount of electric power as one coal worker" A Ideas, (May 3,2017)
• http://www.aei.org/publication/inconvenient-energy-fact-it-takes-79-solar-workers-to-produce-same-amount-of-electric-power-as-one-coal-worker/ (accessed 10/13/17)
• [15] "Benefits of renewable energy," Union of Concerned Scientists, no date
• http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/renewable-energy/public-benefits-of-renewable-power#bf-toc-3 (accessed 10/13/17)
• [16] John Kenneth "Ken" Galbraith,  The New Industrial State, Princeton: Priomceton University Press, 1967
• 
  

Continue reading the main storyShare This Pag

• ShareTweE

[17]"Biden-Harris Administration Finalizes Suite of Standards to Reduce Pollution from Fossil Fuel-Fired Power Plants" EPA, April (2024) https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/biden-harris-administration-finalizes-suite-standards-reduce-pollution-fossil-fuel ______________________________________________

God,Science, and ideology,a book by Joseph Hinmman

God.Science, and ideology, by Joseph Hinman, is a great book. Ot argues that positions which teach the superiority of science over religion in such a way as to negate the truth content of the religious is not a scientific position but an ideological one. The books takes down such atheist greats as Dawkins and discusses the strongest God arguments.

This is an important book that spans an immense literature in a balanced and very readable form. For anyone interested in why some believe and others do not, this book will inform you of the entire range of literature in which not only can the proper questions be asked, but the reader can evaluate the often hidden ideological nature in which answers are proposed Ralph W. Hood, Jr., Ph.D.

Professor of Psychology and LeRoy A. Martin Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies

"Hinman is highly stimulating, brilliant in places. It is rare to find a book so exuberant yet still rational."

--Lantz Fleming Miller, Ashoka University

https://www.amazon.com/God-Science-Ideology-examining-religious-scientific/dp/0982408765

Quick note on Trump

I came accross this on facebook. Forgot all about it I think it should be noised about for the election: Joe Hinman September 30, 2018 · Shared with Public I just watched face the nation, The Fearless leader has done more damage than even I realized! The guest was a man from the department of commerce he was saying Trump keeps squeaking about what great accomplishments he's made, bit even his major underlings do not realize the harm he;s done, Example: only the department of energy has the expertise to know if Iran can build an nuclear weapon at this state. But Trump officialism have not even asked then because they know that. When told this Trump said "they are not military what do they know?" No one likes the government but the truth is over the course of the 20th century the feds built a vast data collectivization machine in the various federal agencies. All Trump has done is to destroy that data collection/dissemination ability. Another example he says the public no loner has access to the major data on global warming.""

Occam's razor shaves the Multiverse

Multiverse is the idea that our space/time is merely one "universe" in a huge limitless number of parallel worlds. Atheists often use this concept to argue against the fine tuning argument by saying with all those universe out there the odds of hitting one that can bare life is not so great. Our life bearing universe is not as improbable as the FTA would have us believe because when we consider that it's just one of a limitless expanse of other worlds then it's not so improbable that one would have life. We just happen to be it, if we weren't we wouldn't know about it. We would not be here. Sometimes they also argue that against the cosmological argument on the grounds that the universe is eternal and infinite and parallel words have been popping up forever. Then there's no way to say "here's the moment of creation."

Atheists have another favorite tactic and that is to argue that Occam's razor rules out God because God is not the simpler idea. There they are confusing it with Parsimony. Occam was priest and he believed in God he didn't think the razor got rid of God. For that reason I've always been somewhat peeved by their use of this argument. Moreover, what the razor really says is no not multiply entities beyond necessity.[1] The thing is you see, atheists assume that since they don't believe in God then is not necessary so God is multiply beyond necessity. That's the argument made by those who at least know the real version of the argument but they don't know what it means. Let's try to understand it first by understanding Occam's nominalism. four senses of nominalism:

(1) Denial of metaphsyical universals: applies to Occam.

(2) reduce one's ontology to bare minimum, streamline categories: applies to Occam.

(3) Nix abstract entities, depending upon what one means here Occam may or may not have been a nominalist in this sense. he did not believe in mathematical entities but he did believe in abstraction such as whiteness, or humanity.

Ockham removes all need for entities in seven of the traditional Aristotelian ten categories; all that remain are entities in the categories of substance and quality, and a few entities in the category of relation, which Ockham thinks are required for theological reasons pertaining to the Trinity, the Incarnation and the Eucharist, even though our natural cognitive powers would see no reason for them at all. As is to be expected, the ultimate success of Ockham's program is a matter of considerable dispute.[2]

He was not getting rid of God. Occam's razor never allows us to deny what spade calls "putative entities" which would definitely include God. It merely bids us referain from positing them without good reason. Of course the many choruses of atheist propagadna slgoanizing would have it that this does include God,[3] but with my 52 arguments we know better, don't we?[4]In fact for Occam humans can't really know what is necessary, "For Ockham, the only truly necessary entity is God; everything else, the whole of creation, is radically contingent through and through. In short, Ockham does not accept the Principle of Sufficient Reason.."[5] Wait a minute, not a contradiction because all the reasor says is refrain form multiplying entities without good reason, not rub them out of existence. Note that he includes God as the only truly necesasry entity. Thus atheist are violating Occam's razor in trying to use it on God.

Occam did not have a razor:

"The concept of Occam’s razor is credited to William of Ockham, a 13-14th-century friar, philosopher, and theologian. While he did not coin the term, his characteristic way of making deductions inspired other writers to develop the heuristic. Indeed, the concept of Occam’s razor is an ancient one which was first stated by Aristotle who wrote “we may assume the superiority, other things being equal, of the demonstration which derives from fewer postulates or hypotheses.”[6]

Yet this raises the question of the Multiverse. Is the multiverse necessary? It's a matter of empirical question and there is empirical evidence to support it. Claims have been made of hard data proving Multivese, but when investigated they evaporate. Here's a physicist who opposed string theory and multiverse he argues that his evaluation of the papers finds irresolvable problems.

In recent years there have been many claims made for “evidence” of a multiverse, supposedly found in the CMB data (see for example here). Such claims often came with the remark that the Planck CMB data would convincingly decide the matter. When the Planck data was released two months ago, I looked through the press coverage and through the Planck papers for any sign of news about what the new data said about these multiverse evidence claims. There was very little there; possibly the Planck scientists found these claims to be so outlandish that it wasn’t worth the time to look into what the new data had to say about them. One exception was this paper, where Planck looked for evidence of “dark flow”.[7]

If hard evidence turns up for it then we have to deal with that on it's own terms. Until that time Multiverse should be shaved with Occam's razor. We don't need it to explain reality, it's only advanced to keep from having to turn to God. It's naturalistic so it's an arbitrary necessity at best. Arbitrary necessitates are logical impossibilities, contingent things jumped up to the level of necessity to answer a God argument. It's not we are going to disprove the unnecessary entity but we are going refrain from advancing it's existence as an assumption until such a time that real empirical evidence makes it necessary. Therefore, Multiverse should be taken out of the issues of God arguments.

sources


[1]C.K. Brampton, "Nominalism and the Law of Parsimony." The Modern School Men, Volume 41, Issue 3, (March 1964), 273-281. the sentiment of that slogan "don't multiply entities beyond necessity" is in line with Occam's thinking although he didn't actually say that.

[2]Spade, Paul Vincent and Panaccio, Claude, "William of Ockham", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = . Fall 2011 (substantive content change) [new author(s): Spade, Paul Vincent; Panaccio, Claude]

[3] Spade, et al, Ibid.

[4] 42 God arguments on Doxa, and 10 more on Religious A prori.

[5]Spade, Ibid.

[6] FS Farnam Street The Danger of Over Simplification: how to use Occam;s Rzzor without getting cut"
https://fs.blog/2017/05/mental-model-occams-razor/

[7]Peter Woit, Not Even Wrong,May 22, 2013 blog: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/ Woit, Ph.D. particle theory form Princeton, Post doctorte in phsyics and math from Berkeley, tught at Columbia since 1989.

Joseph Hinman, "Occam's Razor Shaves the Multiverse," Metacorck's Blog. (June 12, 2013) http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2013/06/occams-razor-shaves-multiverse.html (accessed June 8.2019)


____________________________

God,Science, and ideology,a book by Joseph Hinmman

God.Science, and ideology, by Joseph Hinman, is a great book. Ot argues that positions which teach the superiority of science over religion in such a way as to negate the truth content of the religious is not a scientific position but an ideological one. The books takes down such atheist greats as Dawkins and discusses the strongest God arguments.

This is an important book that spans an immense literature in a balanced and very readable form. For anyone interested in why some believe and others do not, this book will inform you of the entire range of literature in which not only can the proper questions be asked, but the reader can evaluate the often hidden ideological nature in which answers are proposed Ralph W. Hood, Jr., Ph.D.

Professor of Psychology and LeRoy A. Martin Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies

"Hinman is highly stimulating, brilliant in places. It is rare to find a book so exuberant yet still rational."

--Lantz Fleming Miller, Ashoka University

https://www.amazon.com/God-Science-Ideology-examining-religious-scientific/dp/0982408765

No connection between Jesus and Mithra

There is still a strong current of Jesus mythicusm on the net. It used to be much stronger. In the days of Ashayra S. one saw copy cat savior stuff everywhere. We do not see that nonsense as much now but it is stil there. My favorite target to disprove was those who claimed Christianity,and Jesus, were copuied after Pagan sources especially Mithrism.

The Mythic Mysteries are very complex, and the only real similarities to Jesus are minute ones.. Most of these alleged similarities are suspect or unimportant. It is often claimed by skeptics on the Internet that "there is so much similarity" but I find very little. Mithra comes from Persia and is part of Zoroastrian myth, but this cult was transplanted to Rome near the end of the pre-Christian era. Actually the figure of Mithra is very ancient. He began in the Hindu pantheon and is mentioned in the Vedas. He latter spread to Persia where he took the guise of a sheep protecting deity. But his guise as a shepherd was rather minor. He is associated with the Sun as well. Yet most of our evidence about his cult (which apparently didn't exist in the Hindu or Persian forms) comes from Post-Pauline times. Mythric rituals were meant to bring about the salvation and transformation of initiates. In that sense it could be seen as similar to Christianity, but it was a religion and all religions aim at ultimate transformation. He's a total mythical figure he meets the sun who kneels before him, he slays a cosmic bull, nothing is real or human, no sayings, no teachings.

1) no Virginal Conception

Mithra was born of a rock, so unless the rock was a virgin rock, no virginal conception for him.[1] David Ulansey, who is perhaps the greatest Mithric scholar of the age, agrees that Mithras was born out of a rock, not of a virgin woman. He was also born as a full grown adult.[2]

2) No crucifixion or resurrection.

There no story of Mithras death and no references to resurrection. The only similarity about him in this relation is that his shedding of the Bull's blood is said by H.G. Wells (Out Line of World History ) to be the prototype for Jesus sacrifice on the cross. But in reality the only similarity here is blood, and it wasn't even his own. It may even be borrowing form Christianity that made the shedding of blood important in the religion. Gordon says directly, that there is "no death of Mithras"[3]

3) No Savior, no baptism, no Christmas

Moreover, one of the major sources comes from the second century AD and is found in inscriptions on a temple, "and you saved us after having shed the eternal blood." This sounds Christian, but being second century after Christ it could well be borrowed from Christianity [4] "Mithra was the Persian god whose worship became popular among Roman soldiers (his cult was restricted to men) and was to prove a rival to Christianity in the late Roman Empire. Early Zoroastrian texts, such as the Mithra Yasht, cannot serve as the basis of a mystery of Mithra in as much as they present a god who watches over cattle and the sanctity of contracts. Later Mithraic evidence in the west is primarily iconographic; there are no long coherent texts".[5]

4) Most of our sources Post Date Christianity.

(a) Almost no Textual evidence exists for Mithraism

Most of the texts that do exist are from outsiders who were speculating about the cult. We have no information form inside the cult.[6]



David Ulansey (the Major scholar of Mithraism in world):

Owing to the cult's secrecy, we possess almost no literary evidence about the beliefs of Mithraism. The few texts that do refer to the cult come not from Mithraic devotees themselves, but rather from outsiders such as early Church fathers, who mentioned Mithraism in order to attack it, and Platonic philosophers, who attempted to find support in Mithraic symbolism for their own philosophical ideas. "At present our knowledge of both general and local cult practice in respect of rites of passage, ceremonial feats and even underlying ideology is based more on conjecture than fact."[7]

) And Cumont himself observed, in the 50s

"The sacred books which contain the prayers recited or chanted during the [Mithraic] survives, the ritual on the initiates, and the ceremonials of the feasts, have vanished and left scarce a trace behind...[we] know the esoteric disciplines of the Mysteries only from a few indiscretions."[8]
(b) Roman Cult began after Jesus life

Our earliest evidence for the Mithraic mysteries places their appearance in the middle of the first century B.C.: the historian Plutarch says that in 67 B.C. a large band of pirates based in Cilicia (a province on the southeastern coast of Asia Minor) were practicing "secret rites" of Mithras. The earliest physical remains of the cult date from around the end of the first century A.D., and Mithraism reached its height of popularity in the third century.[9]

(c) No Continuity between Ancient Persian past and Roman Cult

Throughout most of the twentieth century Franz Cumont so influenced scholarship that the entire discipline followed in the wake of his assumption that the Roman cult was spread by the Persian cult. In the early 70's David Ulansey did for Mithric scholarship what Noan Chomsky did for linguistics, he totally redefined the coordinates by which the discipline moved. Ulansey showed that the Roman cult was not the continuance of the Persian cult, that there was no real evidence of a Persian cult. He showed that the killing of the great comic bull which latter became the major event in Mithraism, and the parallel from which Jesus Mythers get the shedding of blood and sacrifice, was not known in the Persian era. This would be like showing that the story of the Cross was not known to Christians in the first century. The major likeness to Christianity and the central point of the cult of Mithraism was not known in the time of Christ, in the time Paul, or for at least two centuries after:

There were, however, a number of serious problems with Cumont's assumption that the Mithraic mysteries derived from ancient Iranian religion. Most significant among these is that there is no parallel in ancient Iran to the iconography which is the primary fact of the Roman Mithraic cult. For example, as already mentioned, by far the most important icon in the Roman cult was the tauroctony. This scene shows Mithras in the act of killing a bull, accompanied by a dog, a snake, a raven, and a scorpion; the scene is depicted as taking place inside a cave like the mithraeum itself. This icon was located in the most important place in every mithraeum, and therefore must have been an expression of the central myth of the Roman cult. Thus, if the god Mithras of the Roman religion was actually the Iranian god Mithra, we should expect to find in Iranian mythology a story in which Mithra kills a bull. However, the fact is that no such Iranian myth exists: in no known Iranian text does Mithra have anything to do with killing a bull.

[10].

(5) Mithraism Emerged in the west only after Jesus' day

. Mithraism could not have become an influence upon the origins of the first century, for the simple reason that Mithraism did not emerge from its pastoral setting in rural Persia until after the close of the writting of the New Testament canon.[11]

(6) We Don't know what any of it means.

As Ronald Nash said: "No one can be sure that the meaning of the meals and the ablutions are the same between Christianity and Mithraism. Just because the two had them is no indication that they come to the same thing. These are entirely superficial and circumstantial arguments."[12]

(7) Mithraism was influenced by Christianity

a) Roman Soldiers Spread the cult.

Roman soldiers probably encountered Mithraism first as part of Zoroastrianism while on duty in Persia. The Cult spread through the Roman legion, was most popular in the West, and had little chance to spread through or influence upon Palestine. It's presence in Palestine was mainly confined to the Romans who were there to oppress the Jews. Kane tries to imply that these mystery cults were all indigenous to the Palestinian area, that they grew up alongside Judaism, and that the adherents to these religions all traded ideas as they happily ate together and practiced good neighborship.

b) Mithric Roman Soldiers Influenced by Christians in Palestine

But Mithraism was confined to the Roman Legion primarily, those who were stationed in Palestine to subdue the Jewish Revolt of A.D. 66-70. In fact strong evidence indicates that in this way Christianity influenced Mithraism. First, because Romans stationed in the West were sent on short tours of duty to fight the Parthians in the East, and to put down the Jewish revolt. This is where they would have encountered a Christianity whose major texts were already written, and whose major story (that of the life of Christ) was already formed.[13]

There is no real evidence for a Persian Cult of Mithras. The cultic and mystery aspect did not exist until after the Roman period, second century to fourth. This means that any similarities to Christianity probably come from Christianity as the Soldiers learned of it during their tours in Palestine. The Great historian of religions, Franz Cumont was able to prove that the earliest datable evidence for the cult came from the Military Garrison at Carnuntum, on the Danube River (modern Hungary). The largest Cache of Mithric artifacts comes form the area between the Danube and Ostia in Italy.[14]

The only real simiarity between mythrism and Christianity is the shedding of blood Both use that image in different ways and it means different things to each. As with most Jesus Myther arguments there is mo basis for the copy cat savior theory based upon upon Mithrism.


Here is a link on my original website Doxa in which I look at other figures said to be Patterns for Jesus. No copy cat savior Notes


[1] Marvin W. Meyer, ed. The Ancient Mysteries :a Sourcebook. San Francisco: Harper, 1987,201,

[2]David Ulansey. The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries: Cosmology and Salvation in the Ancient World. New York: Oxford U. Press, 1989.

[3] Richard Gordon. Image and Value in the Greco-Roman World. Aldershot: Variorum, 1996.96.

(Meyer, p 206).

[4] M.Meyer, (editor) The Ancient Mysteries : A Source Book , San Francisco: Harper, 1987,170-171,204.

[5]Edwin Yamauchi, "Easter: Myth, Hallucination, or History," https://leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html

[6] Cosmic Mysteries of Mythras (--visted sept 22, 2024) http://www.mysterium.com/mithras.html


[7] David Ulansey, Mithraic Studies: Proceedings of the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies. Manchester U. Press, 1975,437.

[8] Franz Cumont. The Mysteries of Mithra. New York: Dover, 1950.152)


[9] David Ulansey, Cosmoic Mysteries of Mithras (website) http://www.mysterium.com/mithras.html

[10] Ibid.

[11] Franz Cumont, The Mysteries of Mithra (Chicago: Open Court, 1903), 87ff.

[12] Ronald Nash, "Was the New Testament Influenced by Pagan Religions?" Christian Research Journal, Winter 1994, 8

[13]Franz Cumont, Op Cit 87ff.

[14] David Ulansey, website, op cit..

____________________________

God,Science, and ideology,a book by Joseph Hinmman

God.Science, and ideology, by Joseph Hinman, is a great book. Ot argues that positions which teach the superiority of science over religion in such a way as to negate the truth content of the religious is not a scientific position but an ideological one. The books takes down such atheist greats as Dawkins and discusses the strongest God arguments.

This is an important book that spans an immense literature in a balanced and very readable form. For anyone interested in why some believe and others do not, this book will inform you of the entire range of literature in which not only can the proper questions be asked, but the reader can evaluate the often hidden ideological nature in which answers are proposed Ralph W. Hood, Jr., Ph.D.

Professor of Psychology and LeRoy A. Martin Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies

"Hinman is highly stimulating, brilliant in places. It is rare to find a book so exuberant yet still rational."

--Lantz Fleming Miller, Ashoka University

https://www.amazon.com/God-Science-Ideology-examining-religious-scientific/dp/0982408765

Jeff Lowder fine tuning bait and switch

Jeff Lowder at Secular Outpost, argues against William Lane Craig's fine tuning argument. His objective is to show that even if the argument is valid it doesn't establish probability for God.

Lowdwer's syllogism of the argument:

1. The life-permitting nature of the universe’s initial conditions is either the result of chance, necessity or design. (Premise)
2. It is not the result of chance or necessity. (Premise)
3. Therefore, it is the result of design. (From 1 and 2)

This argument is clearly valid, i.e., the conclusion follows from the premises. We want to know the probability of (3). The probability of (3) will depend upon the probability of (2). If we have a very weak degree of belief that (2) is true, say we think Pr(2)=0.25, then, by itself, this argument only warrants the belief Pr(3)=0.25. N.B. I’m not claiming that (2) has an exact numerical probability equal to 0.25; that value is simply an example to illustrate the point.

Excluding it as a result of chance means showing the improbability of a given variable. For example hitting the target levels necessary for large open bodies of water on a planet. If that is extremely improbable then it's less likely that it "just happened" as the result of chance. The very fact of target levels and the extreme improbability of hitting them all argues against necessity. The universe did not have to turn out as it did. as Paul Davies Tells us:

Paul Davies:

"You might be tempted to suppose that any old rag-bag of laws would produce a complex universe of some sort, with attendant inhabitants convinced of their own specialness. Not so. It turns out that randomly selected laws lead almost inevitably either to unrelieved chaos or boring and uneventful simplicity. Our own universe is poised exquisitely between these unpalatable alternatives, offering a potent mix of freedom and discipline, a sort of restrained creativity. The laws do not tie down physical systems so rigidly that they can accomplish little, but neither are they a recipe for cosmic anarchy. Instead, they encourage matter and energy to develop along pathways of evolution that lead to novel variety-what Freeman Dyson has called the principle of maximum diversity: that in some sense we live in the most interesting possible universe."

"Some scientists have tried to argue that if only we knew enough about the laws of physics, if we were to discover a final theory that united all the fundamental forces and particles of nature into a single mathematical scheme, then we would find that this superlaw, or theory of everything, would describe the only logically consistent world. In other words, the nature of the physical world would be entirely a consequence of logical and mathematical necessity. There would be no choice about it. I think this is demonstrably wrong. There is not a shred of evidence that the universe is logically necessary. Indeed, as a theoretical physicist I find it rather easy to imagine alternative universes that are logically consistent, and therefore equal contenders for reality." [2]

We can eliminate necessity and even Andre Linde himself tells us the probabilities are overwhelmingly against life, meaning it is most unlikely that the universe's life bearing aspect would come about randomly.[3] That means premise two checks out and thus the argument is valid. But I think Lowder is attacking the soundness by brining arguing that the fine turning argument doesn't include all relevant material, that will change the probability factors.

At this point he's going to pull an interesting bait and switch. He's going to transpose fine tuning into design argument so he can argue the counter design argument. But first he brings up the idea that FT dies not reflect all the data:

Second, such arguments fail to embody all of the relevant, available evidence. .... It may well be the case that, by itself, the life-permitting nature of the universe’s initial conditions does make it more probable than not that the universe is designed. But that doesn’t entail that, all things considered, the total available, relevant evidence makes it more probable than not that the universe is designed. In order to defend that claim, you have to look at all of the evidence, including the evidence of evolution, biological role of pain and pleasure, nonresistant nonbelief, etc. And once you do that, it’s far from obvious that the total evidence favors theism, much less Christian theism.

What he's calling "relevant data is anti-design data, FT is a from of design but does it have the same implications such that anti-design evidence would  count against it? Most of us know that evolution is not counter evidence to God. God can use evolution so how is that counter? There is the extinction aspect. The cruelty of nature. He fleshes some of it out thusly:

We also know that so much of our universe is hostile to life due to things such as containing vast amounts of empty space, temperatures near absolute zero, cosmic radiation, and so forth. Given that our universe is life-permitting, the fact that so much of it is hostile to life is much more probable on no-design than on design. So once all of the evidence about cosmic life-permitting conditions has been fully stated, however, it’s far from obvious that facts about cosmic “fine-tuning” favor design over non-design.

That only matters because he's brining in the conventional design arguments or bait and witch. In the conventional design argument the argument turns u[on things looking designed fitting together and seeming like the result of a plan. That's why empty space life threatening aspects are taken as counter design evidence they don't paper life so they are not part of a plan. All he's really doing there is to turn the conditions that make life improbable (counts for FT) into evidence for unplanned universe. That's because he switched arguments. In FT the only appearance of planning is so many totally improbable things working out. All that empty space bad water and so on is actually pro design if the deign is FT. In other words with FT the only aspects of design are where the target levels are hit and how overwhelming  the odds against hitting them. None of his counter design stuff really matters.

 

 

 

Lowder also said:

on the basis of Purdue University philosopher Paul Draper’s work, Craig’s appeal to cosmic fine-tuning is a textbook example of the fallacy of understated evidence. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that the life-permitting conditions of our universe are more likely on design than on no-design. That fact–if it is a fact–hardly exhausts what we know about the habitability of our universe. [4]

 

That's just a fancy way of reiterating that one must include all the material so I've already dealt with it.

 

 

 

 

 see my FT argument on Religious a priori 




[1] Jeffery Jay Lowder, "WLC Denies That Anyone Has Ever Died a Sincere Seeker Without Finding God" Secular Out Post, January 2, 2016 (blog URL)
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2016/01/02/wlc-denies-that-anyone-has-ever-died-a-sincere-seeker-without-finding-god/  Accessed 1/10/16
all quotations from Lowder will be from this source.

[2] Paul Davies  "Physics and The Mind of G: The Tempelton Prize Address,"First Things, August 5 (1995) On line URL:
http://www.firstthings.com/article/1995/08/003-physics-and-the-mind-of-god-the-templeton-prize-address-24  accessed 1/20/16

[3] Andre Linde,"The Self  Reproducing Inflationary Universe, Scientifi9c American Nov 19994, 48-55

Now Linde is confident that the new inflationary theires will explain all of this, and indeed states that their purpose is to revolve the ambiguity with which cosmologists are forced to cope. His co-author in inflationary theory. Physicist Paul Steinhardt, had doubts about it as early as his first paper on the subject (1982). He admits that the point of the theory was to eliminate fine tuning (a major God argument), but the theory only works if one fine tunes the constants that control the inflationary period.

John Horgan, “Physicist slams Cosmic Theory he Helped Conceive,” Scientific American Blogs, December 1, 2014. on line, URL http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/physicist-slams-cosmic-theory-he-helped-conceive/ accessed 10/5/15. Horgan interviews Steinhardt.

“The whole point of inflation was to get rid of fine-tuning – to explain features of the original big bang model that must be fine-tuned to match observations. The fact that we had to introduce one fine-tuning to remove another was worrisome. This problem has never been resolved."

[4] Fallacy of understated evidence

(Taken from Secular Outpost):

INTRODUCTION: "Paul Draper has usefully identified a fallacy of inductive reasoning he calls the 'fallacy of understated evidence.' According to Draper, in the context of arguments for theism and against naturalism, proponents of a theistic argument are guilty of this fallacy if they 'successfully identify some general fact F about a topic X that is antecedently more likely on theism than on naturalism, but ignore other more specific facts about X, facts that, given F, are more likely on naturalism than on theism.'[1]