Sunday, April 30, 2017

Can Science really Prove The Basis of Modern Physics

 photo European-lab-Close-to-finding-God-particle-NAN19NH-x-large.jpg

Realms Beyond

I've demonstrated in other posts,  that transcendent realms were not the original concept of supernatural. That is, however, the modern Western concept. Thus, we might as well ask, are there realms beyond our knowing, is this possible? If so, is there any possibility of our investigating them? Scientists have usually tended to assume that metaphysical assumptions about realms beyond are just out of the domain of science and can’t be investigated so they don’t bother to comment. Victor Stenger, however, wants to be able to assert that he’s disproved them so he argues that the magisteria do overlap. “There exists a widespread notion, promulgated at the higher levels of the scientific community itself, that science has nothing to say about God or the supernatural…”[1]
He sights the national academy of sciences and their position that these are non overlapping magisteria, “science is a way of knowing about the natural world. It is limited to explaining the natural world. Science can say nothing about the supernatural. Weather God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral.”2 Stenger disagrees. He argues that they can study the effects of prayer so that means they can eliminate the supernatural.

Two things are wrong with Stenger’s approach. First, he doesn’t use Lourdes or any other empirical record of miracles. He’s going entirely by double blind studies which can’t control for prayer from outside the control group; that makes such studies virtually worthless. So in effect Stenger is taking the work of people who try to empirically measure what is beyond the empirical, then when it doesn’t work he says “see, there’s nothing beyond the empirical.” That proves nothing more than the fact that we can’t measure that which is beyond measuring. Secondly, he doesn’t deal with the real religious experience studies or the M scale. That means he’s not really dealing with the empirical effects of supernature. I’ve just demonstrated good reason to think that supernature Is working in nature. It’s not an alien realm outside the natural, it’s not a miracle it’s not something that sets its self apart form the daily regular workings of the world. Supernature is of God but nature is of God. God made nature and he works in nature. We can tell the two apart by the results. Now I am going to deal with the other two issues, are there realms beyond the natural? Are there evidences of a form of supernatural in the world that stand apart from the natural such that we can call them “miracles?”

Are there realms beyond the natural? Of course there can be no direct evidence, even a direct look at them would stand apart from our received version of reality and thus be suspect. The plaintive cry of the materialists that “there is no evidence for the supernatural” is fallacious to the core. How can there be evidence when any evidence that might be would automatically be suspect? Moreover, science itself gives us reason to think there might be. Quantum physics is about unseen realms, but they are the world of the extremely tiny. This is the fundamental basis of reality, what’s beneath or behind everything. They talk about “particles” but in reality they are not particles. They are not bits of stuff. They are not solid matter.3 Treating particles as points is also problematic. This is where string theory comes in.
This is where string theory comes in. In string theory fundamental particles aren't treated as zero-dimensional points. Instead they are one-dimensional vibrating strings or loops. The maths is hair-raising, and the direct evidence non-existent, but it does provide a way out of the current theoretical cul-de-sac. It even provides a route to unifying gravity with the other three fundamental forces - a problem which has baffled the best brains for decades. The problem is, you need to invoke extra dimensions to make the equations work in string-theory and its variants: 10 spacetime dimensions to be precise. Or 11 (M-theory). Or maybe 26. In any case, loads more dimensions than 4.
So where are they then? One idea is that they are right under our noses, but compacted to the quantum scale so that they are imperceptible. "Hang on a minute", you might think,"How can you ever prove the existence of something that, by definition, is impossible to perceive?" It's a fair point, and there are scientists who criticize string theory for its weak predictive power and testability. Leaving that to one side, how can you conceptualize extra dimensions?4
There is no direct evidence of these unseen realms and they may be unprovable. Why are they assumed with such confidence and yet reductionsts make the opposite assumption about spiritual realms? It’s not because the quantum universe realms are tangible or solid or material they are not. Scientists can’t really describe what they are, except that they are mathematical. In fact why can’t they be the same realms?

Then there’s the concept of the multiverse. This is not subatomic in size but beyond our space/time continuum. These would be other universes perhaps like our own, certainly the size of our own, but beyond our realm of space/time. Some scientists accept the idea that the same rules would apply in all of these universes, but some don’t.

Beyond it [our cosmic visual horizon—42 billion light years] could be many—even infinitely many—domains much like the one we see. Each has a different initial distribution of matter, but the same laws of physics operate in all. Nearly all cosmologists today (including me) accept this type of multiverse, which Max Tegmark calls “level 1.” Yet some go further. They suggest completely different kinds of universes, with different physics, different histories, maybe different numbers of spatial dimensions. Most will be sterile, although some will be teeming with life. A chief proponent of this “level 2” multiverse is Alexander Vilenkin, who paints a dramatic picture of an infinite set of universes with an infinite number of galaxies, an infinite number of planets and an infinite number of people with your name who are reading this article.5

Well there are two important things to note here. First, that neither string theory nor multiverse may ever be proved empirically. There’s a professor at Columbia named Peter Woit who writes the blog “Not Even Wrong” dedicated to showing that string theory can’t be proved.6 There is no proof for it or against it. It can’t be disproved so it can’t be proved either.7 That means the idea will be around for a long time because without disproving it they can’t get rid of it. Yet without any means of disproving it, it can’t be deemed a scientific fact. Remember it’s not about proving things it’s about disproving them. Yet science is willing to consider their possibility and takes them quite seriously. There is no empirical evidence of these things. They posit the dimensions purely as a mathematical solution so the equations work not because they have any real evidence.8

We could make the argument that we have several possibilities for other worlds and those possibilities suggest more: we have the idea of being “outside time.” There’s no proof that this is place one can actually go to, but the idea of it suggests the possibility, there’s the world of anti-matter, there are worlds in string membranes, and there are other dimensions tucked away and folded into our own. In terms of the multiverse scientists might argue that they conceive of these as “naturalistic.” They would be like our world with physical laws and hard material substances and physical things. As we have seen there are those who go further and postulate the “rules change” idea. We probably should assume the rules work the same way because its all we know. We do assume this in making God arguments such as the cosmological argument. Yet the possibility exists that there could be other realms that are not physical and not “natural” as we know that concept. The probability of that increases when we realize that these realms are beyond our space/time thus they are beyond the domain of our cause and effect, and we know as “natural.” It really all goes back to the philosophical and ideological assumption about rules. There is no way to prove it either way. Ruling out the possibility of a spiritual realm based upon the fact that we don’t live in it would be stupid. The idea that “we never see any proof of it” is basically the same thing as saying “we don’t live it so it must not exist.” Of course this field is going to be suspect, and who can blame the critics? Anyone with a penchant for the unknown can set up shop and speculate about what might be “out there.” Yet science itself offers the possibility in the form of modern physics, the only rationale for closing that off is the distaste for religion.

All that is solid melts into air

This line by Marx deals with society, social and political institutions, but in thinking about the topic of SN it suggests a very different issue. The reductionst/materialists and phsyicalists assume and often argue that there is no proof of anything not material and not ‘physical” (energy is a form of matter).  The hard tangible nature of the physical is taken as the standard for reality while the notion of something beyond our ability to dietetic is seen in a skeptical way, even though the major developments in physics are based upon it. Is the physical world as tangible and solid as we think? Science talks about “particles” and constructs models of atoms made of wooden tubes and little balls this gives us the psychological impression that the world of the very tiny is based upon little solid balls. In reality subatomic particles are not made out of little balls, nor are these ‘particles” tangible or solid. In fact we could make a strong argument that no one even knows what they are made of.

We keep talking about "particles", but this word doesn't adequately sum up the type of matter that particle physicists deal with. In physics, particles aren't usually tiny bits of stuff. When you start talking about fundamental particles like quarks that have a volume of zero, or virtual particles that have no volume and pop in and out of existence just like that, it is stretching the everyday meaning of the word "particle" a bit far. Thinking about particles as points sooner or later leads the equations up a blind alley. Understanding what is happening at the smallest scale of matter needs a new vocabulary, new maths, and very possibly new dimensions.
This is where string theory comes in. In string theory fundamental particles aren't treated as zero-dimensional points. Instead they are one-dimensional vibrating strings or loops. The maths is hair-raising, and the direct evidence non-existent, but it does provide a way out of the current theoretical cul-de-sac. It even provides a route to unifying gravity with the other three fundamental forces - a problem which has baffled the best brains for decades. The problem is, you need to invoke extra dimensions to make the equations work in string-theory and its variants: 10 spacetime dimensions to be precise. Or 11 (M-theory). Or maybe 26. In any case, loads more dimensions than 4.9
Particles are not solid; they are not very tiny chunks of solid stuff. They have no volume nor do they have the kind of stable existence we do. They “pop” in and out of existence! This is not proof for the supernatural. It might imply that the seeming solidity of “reality” is illusory. There are two kinds of subatomic particles, elementary and composite. Composite are made are made out of smaller particles. Now we hear it said that elementary particles are not made out of other particles. It’s substructure is unknown. They may or may not be made of smaller particles. That means we really don’t know what subatomic particles are made of. That means scientists are willing to believe in things they don’t understand.10 While it is not definite enough to prove anything except that we don’t know the basis of reality, it does prove that and also the possibilities for the ultimate truth of this are still wide open. To rule out “the supernatural” (by the wrong concept) on the assumption that we have no scientific proof of it is utterly arrogance and bombast. For all we know what we take to be solid unshakable reality might be nothing more than God’s day dream. Granted, there is end to the spinning of moon beams and we can talk all day about what ‘might be,’ so we need evidence and arguments to warrant the placing of confidence in propositions. We have confidence placing evidence; it doesn’t have to be scientific although some of it is. That will come in the next chapter. The point here is that there is no basis for the snide dismissal of concepts such as supernatural and supernature.

1 Victor Stenger, God and The Folly of FaithThe Incompatibility of Science and Religion. Amherst: New
York: Prometheus Books, 2012. 225.

Stenger, ibid, quoting National Academy of Sciences, Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science. Washington DC: National Academies Press, 1998, 58.

3STFC “are there other dimensions,” Large Hadron Collider. Website. Science and Facilities Council, 2012 URL:


George F.R. Ellis. “Does the Miltiverse Really Exist [preview]” Scientific American (July 19, 2011) On line version URL:
George F.R. Ellis is Professor Emeritus in Mathematics at University of Cape Town. He’s been professor of Cosmic Physics at SISSA (Trieste)

Peter Woit, Not Even Wrong, Posted on September 18, 2012 by woi blog, URL:

ibid, “Welcome to the Multiverse,” Posted on May 21, 2012 by woit

Mohsen Kermanshahi. Universal Theory. “String Theory.” Website URL:

9 STFC ibid, op cit.

10  Giorgio Giacomelli; Maurizio Spurio Particles and Fundamental Interactions: An Introduction to Particle Physics (2nd ed.). Italy: Springer-Verlag, science and Business media, 2009, pp. 1–3.

Friday, April 28, 2017

Oppose New initative to Kill Obama Care

the bill has already been defeated but it was a test of the Democrat's resistance.
still need to call say end it,m stop trying to kill Obama care

Daily action
In light of news that Republicans are delaying a vote on the Trump/Ryan healthcare bill yet again, today's Daily Action is to call your representative at (844) 241-1141 and demand they put an end to this bill once and for all.
Many Republican members of the House haven't stated how they plan to vote on Trumpcare 2.0. Some may secretly oppose it, but are afraid to say so publicly because they are afraid of the White House. We need you to let those undecided legislators know that they have MUCH more to fear from their constituents, who are overwhelmingly against the AHCA and will not hesitate to vote out anyone who would deny healthcare to millions of Americans! We need 4 more Republicans to publicly oppose the bill. If they are silent, we have to assume they are in support of the bill and going forward, treat them accordingly. Make it clear: silence won't do them any favors with their constituents.
Essentially every Democrat as well as 18 Republican representatives have publicly stated their opposition to the AHCA. If your representative is one of them, we need you to thank them and tell them you expect them to hold strong against any further iterations of this bill.
To receive Daily Action alerts, text DAILY to 228466.

The new Process of Kill Obama care looks more brutal than the first one, We really need to call congress in record numbers and kill this attempt,

Greg Sargent "GOP Has a New Plan to Destroy Obama Care, it's Even Crueler Than The last One," The Washington Post (Opinion) (Ap4il 20) 2017
(accessed 4/18/17)

The Huffington Post has a detailed rundown of the new GOP plan, which is designed to bridge the gap between moderates and conservatives who rejected the last one for different reasons. It allows states to seek a waiver to get rid of the Affordable Care Act’s prohibition on charging higher premiums to people with preexisting conditions, on the condition that states set up or participate in high-risk pools that would help cover any of those people who lose nsurance. It would also restore to the GOP bill the ACA’s requirement that insurers cover Essential Health Benefits (EHBs) — such as doctor’s and emergency room visits and maternit[ready care — but allow states to seek waivers from them.[1] [read more]

"Hard Line republican Caucus Backs Revised Bill To Repeal Obama Care," New York Times (Apil 26) 2017 (on line version, URL:
(accessed 4/18/17)

WASHINGTON — The House Freedom Caucus, a group of hard-line conservatives who were instrumental in blocking President Trump’s plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act last month, gave its approval Wednesday to a new, more conservative version, breathing new life into Republican efforts to replace President Barack Obama’s health law. Senior White House officials, led by Reince Priebus, the chief of staff, have relentlessly pressed Republicans to revive the health care push before Mr. Trump’s hundred-day mark on Saturday, and with conservatives falling into line, the bill has a chance to get through the House, possibly as early as Friday.
It was not clear whether conservative support for the revised legislation would be matched by losses in the center, especially among Republicans representing districts won by Hillary Clinton. But the rest of the House Republican Conference was left with a stark choice: Reject the measure and take the blame previously left at the feet of conservatives for undermining a central goal of the administration, or give it the nod, please voters who want a repeal, and risk taking a potentially fatal hit in the next election for approving a measure expected to leave tens of millions of Americans without insurance.[2] [read more]

Trump lacks enough support from his own party so he seeks to force Dems to negotiate by threatening vital funds for healthcare.

Robert Pear, "Trump Threatens Health Subsidies to Fporce Democrats to Bargain," New York Times (April 13) 2017, on line version URL  (accessed 4/18/17)

His bargaining chip is the government subsidies paid to insurance companies so they can reduce deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs for low-income consumers — seven million people this year. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal this week, Mr. Trump threatened to withhold the subsidy payments as a way to induce the Democrats to bargain with him. For now, Democrats are resisting and using his maneuver against him to energize their own party. And they warn that Mr. Trump will be blamed if the insurance markets collapse and people lose coverage next year. “Republicans are in control of government,” Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Missouri, said Thursday after a town-hall-style meeting in her home state. “If they blow up what access to health care there is right now, they’re going to own it.”[3][Read More]



[1]Greg Sargent "GOP Has a New Plan to Destroy Obama Care, it's Even Crueler Than The last One," The Washington Post (Opinion) (Ap4il 20) 2017
(accessed 4/18/17)

[2] "Hard Line republican Caucus Backs Revised Bill To Repeal Obama Care," New York Times (Apil 26) 2017 (on line version, URL:
(accessed 4/18/17)

[3] Robert Pear, "Trump Threatens Health Subsidies to Fporce Democrats to Bargain," New York Times (April 13) 2017, on line version URL  (accessed 4/18/17)

Wednesday, April 26, 2017

The Nature of Truth

the Knight and friends dance into death and eternity in Bergman's
greatest film,The Seventh Seal 

A poster on Cadre blog says that Christianity screwed up truth and spoiled the rich ancient heritage in modernity, as though Christianity is the historical newcomer and modernity has an ancient heritage,

The word 'truth' and its underlying concept has been so wantonly cheapened over the centuries by the christian experience as to render it meaningless. The only thing we can say is certain about religion, christianity being no exception, is as Prof David Eller, renowned anthropologist eruditely explains, "Religion is essentially social, in both senses of the word. It is an activity that humans do together; it is created, maintained, and perpetuated by human group behaviour. It is also social in the sense that it extends that sociality beyond the human world, to a (putative) realm of non-human agents who also interact with us socially." Any every religion exhibits the very same pathologies based on superstition and ignorance of how the mind works. Its been a tough nut to crack but thankfully science is slowly but inexorably shining a light into those shadowed recesses.So the question about the "Trooth™" of christianity as the 'one and only true religion', or any of the thousands of extinct and extant religions that make the identical claim, is simply enculturated mumbo-jumbo.[1]

He not only spells truth differently but gives it a registered trade mark; nothing could be more appropriate because the modern denuded concept of truth replacing the real idea of truth is a product of 1DM [2] and thus the simulacra  truth of the closed realm of discourse (the product of regicide everything to consuming and producing). In his mind he thinks the issue is between fact based empirical science and pretend made up unreliability Christianity, he;s a dupe. He;s duped into  that false dichotomy. The scientific model that seems so factual is not factual at all it's the streaming data. The data stream is relative and vanishing based upon  the constantly shifting sands of surface level things. The mere existence of the physical is the end of the line for the stream of  data. There can be no unseen  reality there. Of course there is one, the subatomic level but that;s just part of the inconsistency of ideology. That unseen reality plays a crucial role in scientific theory so it;s necessary but spirit doesn't so it has go.

The Christian ideal of truth is not made up.It's the concept of unseen reality that forms the basis of reality (like the subatomic level). It is unchaining,timeless, the basis of all that is. That is the description of god, In St. Augustine's view God = truth.

 Augustine, after he had experienced all the implications of ancient skepticism, gave a classical answer to the problem of the two absolutes: they coincide in the nature of truth. Veritas is presupposed in ever philosophical argument; and veritas is God. You cannot deny truth as such because you could do it only in the name of truth, thus establishing truth. And if you establish truth you affirm God. “Where I have found the truth there I have found my God, the truth itself,” Augustine says. The question of the two Ultimates is solved in such a way that the religious Ultimate is presupposed in every philosophical question, including the question of God. God is the presupposition of the question of God. This is the ontological solution of the problem of the philosophy of religion. God can never be reached if he is the object of a question and not its basis.[3]

In the ideology of scientism God must necessarily be seen as "made up"and any unseen  realm not subatomic has to be made up because if surface level of relativity is all there is then there can be no unseen. So the data stream version of truth is based upon ideology of scientism, at least the science oriented version of it is.I still see it as a creature of post human era (circa 1980) and thus akin to 'Trumpism and alt truth. So even tough fundamentalism calls itself "Christian" it has forsaken the Christian conception truth and is really just another product of the same forces that produced new atheism.

Lest there be any doubt that Paplinton is in the scientism way look at his answer to my comment:
"The overwhelming evidence suggests an explanation for why christianity [and all religions for that matter] persists is not that its narrative is true per se but that it is an epiphenomenal by-product of our need to make sense of the genetic and evolutionary drivers for human behavior in the absence of modern scientific knowledge and understanding two thousand years ago that we now are so thankfully privy to." So he has to destroy the concept of truth,make sure is no concept of a grander context in which material reality plays out amid unchanging eternal  verities,it has to be relative and made up. It's just epi-phenomenal not even a real phenomenon. It;s based upon the need to explaimn things,which is the only motive for any belief if scientism is your only mode of thought. Because it emulates  science.

His sense of history is totally distorted, The Christian concept is closer to teh Greek, having borrowed from it. The modern scientism view narrowed from the Christian. Physicist Paul Davies recognizes that modern enlightenment conceits of laws of physics are merely the residue of the God concept with the personality taken out, French philosphes just retained the powers of God with no will to motivate them.[4] The meta-narrative of scinentisms's ideology would have us believe that only Christianity is an attempt to understand and make sense but the empirical data stream of science is facts and the truth and the true explanation. In reality it is it just another meta-narrative with a different rational but still one that attempts to understand what is beyond its understanding.

Notice he has the social scientist pronounce religion just a social institution. Like that proves that's all it is. But the social sciences (founded largely by Auguste Comte) working out of the early dialectical materialist circles of  Saimt-Simon, Fuerbach, and Marx were set in the path of atheist critique from the beginning,

Classical sociological theories are theories of great scope and ambition that either were created in Europe between the early 1800s and the early 1900s or have their roots in the culture of that period. The work of such classical sociological theorists as Auguste Comte, Karl Marx, Herbert Spencer, Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, Georg Simmel, and Vilfredo Pareto was important in its time and played a central role in the subsequent development of sociology. Additionally, the ideas of these theorists continue to be relevant to sociological theory today, because contemporary sociologists read them. They have become classics because they have a wide range of application and deal with centrally important social issues. [5]
Many of those thinkers made a big thing of atheism. I was a sociology major,l competed the whole major, my BA is in sinology and communication. I got out of the field because its disregard of any view other than its grinding number crunching reductionist meta-narrative.


Data stream

Most modern Theologians base their view of truth upon the correspondence theory, true of Tillich in particular.

 [The idea]... that truth is a relational property involving a characteristic relation (to be specified) to some portion of reality (to be specified). This basic idea has been expressed in many ways, giving rise to an extended family of theories and, more often, theory sketches. Members of the family employ various concepts for the relevant relation (correspondence, conformity, congruence, agreement, accordance, copying, picturing, signification, representation, reference, satisfaction) and/or various concepts for the relevant portion of reality (facts, states of affairs, conditions, situations, events, objects, sequences of objects, sets, properties, tropes). The resulting multiplicity of versions and reformulations of the theory is due to a blend of substantive and terminological differences.
The correspondence theory of truth is often associated with metaphysical realism. Its traditional competitors, pragmatist, as well as coherentist, verificationist, and other epistemic theories of truth, are often associated with idealism, anti-realism, or relativism. In recent years, these traditional competitors have been virtually replaced (at least from publication-space) by deflationary theories of truth and, to a lesser extent, by the identity theory (note that these new competitors are typically notassociated  with anti-realism). [6]
So my notion of truth understands the data stream of science in terms of understanding the physical world but it cant communicate any reality beyond the surface which is empirical existence. Truth with a capital "T" i that which is and it includes  eternal necessary being that can neither cease nor fail to be.It is beyond our understanding.

I close with an explanation of my graphic, Why do I use a scene from the Seventh Seal? BTW the mast head photo is also from the same film, the knight plays chess with death, After doing so he finally looses and he and his friends dance off into death symbolic of dying of black pleasure. Art beats science it's the perfect medium to transmit religious tough into the modern world. It's "made up" but not false.It's the symbol of a truth beyond our understanding that has to be mediated through metaphor, science is made  phony when scientism pretends it can go beyond itself and explain the transcendent, that really means explicate it away.

we all play chess with death, we are all going to die,we do not know what's over the hill.But we know there is truth over the hill.


[1] Paplinton, "If Christianity were True Would You Become a Christian?" Comment section, Cadre Comments.(April 22) 2017 blog. URL"
(accessed April 26,2017)

[2] 1DM is "one-Dimensional Man" Herbert Marcue's concept marking the decline of Western civilization and the ultimate triumph of capitalistic market forces in producing a tantalized system of obedience. It was the ultimate in capitalism  induced false consciousness arresting class struggle. The workers get hooked on false needs, they don't perceive their need to rebel

see Marcuse: Herbert Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society. Boston: Beacon Press, 1964, 12.

[3] Paul Tillich, Theology of Culture, New York: Oxford University press,1964 12-13.

[4] Paul Davies, “Physics and The Mind of God: the Templeton Prize Address,” First Things, August 1995, on line version URL: accessed Nov 25, 2016

[5] Paul Rtzer and Douglas J.Goodman, Classical Sociological Theory, New York: McGraw Hill 4th edition, 79.

[6] Marian David,, "The Correspondence Theory of Truth", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <>.
First published Fri May 10, 2002; substantive revision Thu May 28, 2015

Sunday, April 23, 2017

Jesus mytherism is a symptom of One-Dimensional Man

Image hosted by
Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Historical site
of Jesus' death,burial,and Resurrection.

One dimensional man was Herbert Marcue's concept marking the decline of Western civilization and the ultimate triumph of capitalistic market forces in producing a tantalized system of obedience. It was the ultimate in capitalism  induced false consciousness arresting class struggle. The workers get hooked on false needs, they don't perceive their need to rebel.[1] In the 90s the plucky grad students from UT Dallas produced the academic journal Negations, which sought to update Marcuse into the 90s. Publisher was a J.L.Hinman, Our unique contribution to the subject, the nature of the closed realm of discourage. Everything has to be about consuming and producing,[2]

Fast froward into the current age, the age of the Foux President. Negations was before my days as a Christian apologist (although I was a Christian and had my Masters in theology). As a Christian apologist I have seen and confronted the phenomenon of the Jesus myther. The idea that Jesus was not a man in history but totally myth. For 1900 years Jesus was considered an historical fact, Then in 18th-19th century he was for a sort time seen as mythical by a handful of crack pots whose ideas where smitten. [3] Now that notion has come back to a point that 1 imn 4 Britons thinks Jesus was mythical. [4] Why now? Obviously it's part of the New atheism, but I argued recently on this blog that both fundamentalism (the hard turn right) and atheist fundamentalism (Dawkamentalism) are manifestations of the same collapse of civilization and the filling of the void with ignorance.

One might resist the notion (no pun) that there could be a connection, But let;s consider it. First, we know that the vast majority of historians still believe that Jesus lived as a man in history.

Seldom have recent scholars questioned or denied the historical existence of Jesus.  Of the very few who have done so, G. A. Wells is probably the best known.  In this article, I will outline and then respond to some of his major tenets.Before turning to this topic, I will first note that the vast majority of scholars, both conservative and liberal alike, generally disdain radical theses that question the very existence of Jesus.  For example, theologian Rudolf Bultmann asserted, "By no means are we at the mercy of those who doubt or deny that Jesus ever lived." [i]Historian Michael Grant termed the hypothesis that Jesus never lived an "extreme view."  He charges that it transgresses the basics of historiography: "if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned."  Grant summarizes, after referring to Wells as an example: "modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory."  These positions have been "annihilated" by the best scholars because the critics "have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." [ii] [5]
He goes on to say a publisher wanted him to remove a chapter on Wells [famous advocate ofJesu myth theory]  because it was devoid of "serious sophistical content," He quotes Well's assaying: "nearly all commentators who mention the matter at all, [set] aside doubts about Jesus' historicity as ridiculous." [iii]  [6] Even the famous Wells agrees with him that most historians don't accept it, The mythers dismiss that fact by saying they are biased, it's a prejudice. That may well be but the point is it's presumed true by the people who wrote history and the mythers have no positive argument, All of their arguments basically amount to the absence of direct proof rather than any real evidence that Jesus did not exist, That is not enough, 

One fact that puts the British belief into perspective is that the same people in Briton who doubt Jesus' existence also doubt the existence of Winston  Chrichhill. That's right he was Prime Minister within living memory and yet they doubt he existed! Not only him but King Richard he Lionheart and Florence Nightingale. These are people/whose existence is well documented in history,[7] While there may be actual serious thinkers taunting the Jesus myth theory the real popularity seems to be a symptom of ignorance of the times. Likewise these mythers call for historical proof and yet they are not willing to accept the word of historians, They assert that historians believe in Jesus' historicity as the result of bullying from academic figures and tradition,so they are attempting to pschologize a whole academic disciplined they know nothing about and to use their own standards to critique it by,To me that says major crass ignorance.

There is a larger issue of which all of this is just symptom,That is the battered concept of truth and how truth itself has fared. The alt fact syndrome we saw in  the election is just the latest turn in the death of truth. One example is revealed in the use of the encyclopedia. I argue that all standard reference works include Jesus' historicity as a fact, The mythers just roar with   laughter at the idea that one would quote an encyclopedia. I realize that the encyclopedia is not a sophisticated source. I  would never relay on that in a paper for graduate school. Yet it's enough to pose the basic presumption of Jesus' existence until such a time as a myther has an actual positive bit of evidence which they do not have now, They can't understand this concept,

Then in looking for evidence that says encyclopedia is a valid reference work I find quotes that castigate the encyclopedia in favor of Wiki. Witness Racel S. Wexelbaum's 'study"at St. cloud State University. "Findings – Due to their static nature, traditionally published encyclopedias are not always accurate, objective information resources. Intentions of editors and authors also come into question. A researcher may find more value in using encyclopedias as historical documents rather than resources for quick facts."

The word “encyclopedia” comes from a corruption of the Greek phrase enkyklios paideia which literally translates as “complete instruction” or “complete knowledge”. As human knowledge increases and evolves, capturing it between two covers becomes impossible. With advances in communication, travel, and scientific research, expecting encyclopedia entries to persist as authoritative fact becomes laughable. The traditional encyclopedia survives as a reference resource due to criticism of open source Wikipedia by historians and academic librarians. While the structure of Wikipedia allows for infinite updates to our expanding, shifting knowledge base, the traditional encyclopedia has value as a historical document. Any explanation of phenomena bound between two covers (or rendered immutable by copyright and license agreement) provides a snapshot of what we had once perceived as truth [8]
It seems that most of the reasons She gives for the death of encyclopedias the static nature of print, She says traditional works don't include the view point of  LGBT community ,I have a solution, go into a new printing. But no, truth itself is reduced to news feed. The stream of up to the minute data replaces the concept of timeless truth. Lest some argue appeal to authority this is not the informal fallacy of appeal to improper or necessary authority It just betrays ignorance of science and ignorance of epistemology that people don''t;know this. This is quite different Authority proper is always a basis for knowledge even in science.[9] Every academic I know complains about Wikipedia being used by their students as authoritative source when it can be changed overnight by any hacktivist. But Wexelbaum makes that into one of the selling point of Wiki over encyclopedia. Because truth changes in an instant. Truth is no longer a timeless reality but now a ever changing news feed,

The knowledge standard to which the mythers appeal is not one used by historians but is based upon Wikipedia or upon the instant knowledge of streaming data. There's no instant feed Jesus is not on the 6:00 news, therefore he can;t be historical. This ruthless model of knowledge fits the closed realm of discourage in one-dimensional society (1DM) because no truth can be allowed to penetrate the closed realm that centers around consuming and producing,That is all there is  and nothing else can stand as truth.


[1] Herbert Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society. Boston: Beacon Press, 1964, 12.

[2] J.L.Hinman, "Manifesto," Negations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Social Criticism. Premier issue (winter, 1996). (accessed 4/23/17) URL:

[3] Albert Schweitzher, chapter 11 "Bruno Bauer," Question of the Historical Jesus, London:A&C Black Ltd. trans w. Montgomery, First English Edition 1910.First German Edition "Von Reimarus zu Wrede," 1906.159 On line copy on Early Christian Writings, Peter Kirby,
accessed 11/12/13
Table of contents for Online copy:


[4] BBC News, "Jesus not a Person Many Believe," (31 Oct) 2015 URL: (accessed 4/23/17)

[5] Gary R. Habermas, "A Summary Critique Questioning the Existence of Jesus,"   
Originally published in the Christian Research Journal / vol. 22, no. 3, 2000.Habermas cots two sources:
[i].  "The Story of the Synoptic Gospels," Form Criticism, trans. Frederick Grant (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1962), 60.
[ii].  Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (New York: Macmillan, 1977), 199-200.

[6] Ibid. Habermas cites:
[iii].  Did Jesus Exist?, Revised edition (London: Pemberton, 1978, 1986), 213 (abbreviated in text as DJE).

[7] Telegraph (feb 24,) 2008

[8] Racel S. Wexelbaum, Are Encyclopedias Dead? Evaluating the Usefulness of The Traditional  Reference Work. St. Cloud State University, Paper 26, 2012
(accessed 4/24/17)

archival address:
Wexelbaum, Rachel S., "Are Encyclopedias Dead? Evaluating the Usefulness of a Traditional Reference Resource" (2012). Library Faculty Publications. Paper 26.

[9] Steven Shapin, A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth Century England
Chicago: University Of Chicago Press; 1 edition (November 15, 1995.

 (accessed 4/23/17)

Thursday, April 20, 2017

Whatever Happened to The Trump/Putin Connection?

Remember the fear that Trump was workings for Putin? that has sort of been lost in the Shuffle,Perhaps Trump's planned Saturday night wrestling match with Putin on National Smack down drew our attention away. Some might think hostility over the attack on Assuad's base proves Trump is not Pautin's Pawn? It is unrealistic to think Trump is a real agent for Moscow. I never actually thought that. I did think he may have been manipulated into  helping them as the recipient of their messing with the election without having to do anything for them. That would still make him beholden to them. All of the possibilities are still poem. They are still being investigated nothing has really been taken off the docket.

A Russian agent really was trying to recruit an American business man Carter Page. That we for a fact. That same Carter page became foreign policy advisory to Trump. That is also a fact.[1]
Somehow the Russian attempts gained notice by the FBI they began watching Page with the supposition that he might be an agent:
From the Russia trip of the once-obscure Mr. Page grew a wide-ranging investigation, now accompanied by two congressional inquiries, that has cast a shadow over the early months of the Trump administration. At a House Intelligence Committee hearing last month, the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, took the unusual step of publicly acknowledging the investigation of Russian interference in the election, which he said included possible links between Russia and Trump associates.[2]
Even at that point Trump's then campaign manager, Paul Manafort, was already under criminal investigation for reconfigure money from pro Russian group supporting Putin in Ukraine. That would have helped Trump's campaign there's a connection, Wili leaks had already started postimng emials obtained by Russian intelligence from Democratic party, That clearly helped trump win, These are facts, [3]

It's odd that the Russians sought to help Trump, you would think they would dread having the conservative in office, The KG B actually tired to sway the election against Reagan in 1982 (the 1984 election) [4] Putin blames the US for it's long string of anti-communist electiopm tamperimng and backimg of converter metabolites,some in Soviet block, and the Arab Spring and  lames Sec of state Clinton for anti-Putin machinations   why would he not see the more conservative Trump as moreof the same? Could there be a connection in Trump's pick for secretary of state, (Tillerson) a business contact who had been awarded honors by Putin? The New Yorker's article is a must read fopr understanding the Russia connection. [5]

In seeking to understand where we are so far in discovery we cam;t overlook the Washington post's article. [6]That article lays it all out in vast panorama with charts shoeing the huge complex collusion of Team Trump imn Russian connections,  Just a very small sample: The article goes on with a vast layout listing the players on the team and their involvement. The Russian connection is already as complex as Watergate.

Major Player:

Ret. Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn 
Former national security adviser and former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Flynn resigned as the NSC head after The Washington Post reported that he misled Vice President Mike Pence and others on the true nature of his contacts with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, saying he had not privately discussed U.S. sanctions.
2013 | Flynn meets Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak on a trip to Moscow. Read more 
Dec. 10, 2015 | Flynn is paid more than $45,000 by Russian-government-backed RT for his participation in a Moscow panel honoring the news agency. At a related gala, he sat at the table of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Also in 2015, he was paid more than $22,000 by Russia-related entities for two speeches in Washington. Read more 
Before Nov. 8, 2016 | Flynn contacts Kislyak, according to Post reporting. It's not clear how often they communicated or what was discussed. Read more 
December 2016 | Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, Flynn and Kislyak meet at Trump Tower for 20 minutes. This was just before the Obama administration sanctioned Russia for interfering in the 2016 election. Read more 
Dec. 29, 2016 | Flynn places five phone calls to Kislyak, who was being monitored by U.S. intelligence agencies. The same day, President Obama announces the sanctions. Putin chooses not to retaliate. Read more 
Jan. 12, 2017 | Post columnist David Ignatius reveals that conversations took place between Flynn and Kislyak. On Jan. 15, Vice President Mike Pence says on "Face the Nation" that Flynn had assured him that he and Kislyak did not discuss sanctions. Read more 
Jan. 24, 2017 | Flynn tells FBI interviewers that he did not discuss sanctions with Kislyak, contradicting transcripts from intelligence officials who monitored the calls. Two days later, acting attorney general Sally Q. Yates tells the White House counsel that Flynn had discussed sanctions and could be vulnerable to blackmail by Russia. Trump fired Yates Jan. 30 for refusing to enforce his travel ban. Read more 
Feb. 8, 2017 | Flynn tells a Post reporter that he did not discuss sanctions with Kislyak. The next day, he waffles; a spokesman says Flynn "couldn't be certain that the topic never came up." Also that day, Pence learns from a Post story that the White House knew in January that Flynn and Kislyak had discussed sanctions. Read more 
Feb. 13, 2017 | Flynn is fired after news reports revealed that he misled Pence. Read more 
March 7, 2017 | Flynn files paperwork to register as a foreign agent because of lobbying work potentially benefitting Turkey. Days later it is revealed that his lawyers twice alerted the White House counsel during the transition that Flynn may need to register, meaning the nation's top national security voice was also being paid to represent the interests of another country. Read more 
March 28, 2017 | The Post reports that the Trump administration unsuccessfully tried to block Yates from testifying in a House Intelligence Committee hearing after her lawyer told the Justice Department that her testimony would probably contradict statements by White House officials. Committee chair and former Trump adviser Devin Nunes canceled the hearing. Read more 

The investigation is on going we are only just begriming to see the outlines of the real issues, There;s clearly enough here to demand of our congressmen that we get to the bottom,


[1]Scott Shane.Mark Mazzetti, and Adam Goldman, "Trump adviser's Visit to Moscow Got FBI's Attentions," New York Times (April 19, 2017) on line version URL:

[2] Ibid

[3] Ibid.

[4] Even Osnos, et al, "Trump. Putin, and The New Cold War." The New Yorker, (March 6. 2017)
(accessed April 20/17)

[5] Ibid.

[6]  Bonnie Berkowotz, Denise Lu, and Julie Vitoklvkaya, "Here is what we know so far about team Trump's ties to Russian Interests," Washington Post (March 31, 2017)
(accessed April 20/17)

[7] Ibid.

Updated April 17, 2017