Evangelicals and The Changing of the Mazeways

Anthony FC Wallace (1923-2015)

For years I would see strange opinons 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, Wallace 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 rackets 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.



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,  vii

[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/

the True Christian Concept of Supernatural;

The New atheists constantly mock the SN as though they know what it is. When the discuss it they include anything not naturalistic. The modern conception is that SN is everything from Bigfoot to the resurrection, include g ghosts, UFOs and Psychic Powers. It never occurs to them Christians were using the term before the modern concept of naturalism so it can't just mean everything that's not naturalistic. Jerry Coyne is an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. He is also an apologist for atheism. Coyne says something more interesting than than Dawkins does, however, he says that SN could be studied by science.[1] Although, I'm sure Dawkins probably agrees with his reasoning. If SN could not be so studied it would be unreasonable to fault the notion for not having scientific evidence. Coyne asserts that modern science's tendency to set religion aside as belonging to a different order of reality (magisteria) thus being unsuitable is “accomodationist dogma.” [2]

If you’ve frequented this site, you’ll know that I disagree with this stand. I adamantly maintain that science can indeed test the supernatural—at least those claims about the supernatural that involve its interaction with the real world. Indeed, you’ll be familiar with several claims about the supernatural that have already been tested, and refuted : the Genesis story of creation, the story of Adam and Eve, a 6,000-year-old earth, and the efficacy of intercessory prayer, as well as paranormal phenomena like near-death experiences, telepathy, and precognition. If you invoke a form of the supernatural that claims to have real-world consequences, then those consequences necessarily fall within the ambit of science. This means that any type of theistic faith involves hypotheses that are “scientific”.[3]

Of course he wrongly assumes that theistic faith per se includes young earth creationism, healing and the occult. Most versions of faith based upon modern liberal protestant theology would be immune. He also says, “In other words, we can provisionally accept that there is no god because we don’t see the kind of evidence that we should see if god were present (answered prayers, conformable miracles at Lourdes, and so on….)” Keep reading, we are about to see it.


Ironically, I agree with him on one thing, science can test those aspects of the SN that affect our lives, the only problem is the things he names are not SN. He also does a slippery slope by stating we can test those aspects of SN that overlap with nature then asserting we can go all the way and deny the reality of God based upon that. In this chapter I explore the nature of the original Christian concept. Secientistic thinking writes SN out of reality as unscientific, and as superstition. They justify this, as we just saw Coyne do, by pointing to the ability of science to amass a huge fortress of facts while no facts can be found that prove the existence of a Supernatural realm or any Supernatural events, or beings. Yet the problem is that the original concept of the SN was not about any of these things (witches and six day creation), but about human nature and it's relation to divine nature, plus a set of experiences that issue from that relationship. Those experiences are empirical and have been easily documented to exist and to have effects that make them unique. SN is the tendency of divine encounter to raise human nature to a higher level. Here we can understand human nature as both behavioral tendencies as well as consciousness. This means the scientific fortress of facts is predicated upon a concept of an order of nature that did not exist when the term “supernatural” came into being. Therefore, scientistic skepticism is ideological and not scientific; it uses the mystique of science (the illusion of Technique) to interject its own metaphysical assumptions while triumphing over the assumption of a straw man argument.


Anthropologist Benson Saler quotes the great Emile Durkheim in pointing out that the idea of a bifurcated reality made up of an upper real of “supernatural” and a lower real of “natural” is a modern Western concept that begins with modern science. “[the mysterious world of supernatural above the natural] is not of primitive origin….it is science and not religion that has taught men that things are complex and difficult to understand.” [4] Saler points out that this concept of the realm above nature presupposes a ream of nature bound together by natural laws. This is a modern concept brought to us by science. He also draws upon Durkheim, Hallowell, and Richard in support' the use of the term “supernatural” has a long history that proceeds this modern scientific concept. [5]


Therefore, this separation and divison of natural law from that something beyond it can't be the original Christian concept.

The Original Concept of Supernature


All of these objections assume a certain version of the SN. It has become a catch-all for anything non materialistic or naturalistic that scientistic types want to snub without really having to disprove it. Supernatural today means anything from ghosts, Bigfoot, UFO to psychic powers, and angels and demons and God in heaven. Not so with the original concept. In the early centuries of Christian philosophy the original Greek fathers thought of God as transcendent but they did not necessarily conceive of that as “supernatural.” The Church fathers took their notions from the Greeks. “The term 'supernatural' and cognate words in various European languages were employed Long before the rise of modern natural sciences. [6] The school of Miletus (Ionian Greeks) are generally credited with being the first school of critical philosophy. Their use of the term Phusis (roughly translated “nature;” from this term we derive our word Physics.) caused them to be deemed a “physicists” [7] The Stoics had a concept of natural law and materialism. Their natural order would not have been based upon supernatural design. Aristotle viewed the universe working in a rational manner out of necessity rather than design. Ultimately he grounded everything (motion) in the prime mover, but his prime mover was not anthropomorphic and did not design a higher order but worked by necessity. Many ancients had a notion of natural order without a contrasting notion of a supernatural order. “For some the most interesting opposition was conceptualized as a contrast between nature and art...Christian thinkers through the fifth century did not develop theologically significant uses of supernatural” [8]


Saler points out that St. Cyril of Alexandria is a significant exception, using the Greek huper phusin to describe theology of God's grace in elevation of humanity above nature though Christ. He was writing in 444AD around the same time as pseudo Dionysius (500A.D.) who is credited as having coined the term “Supernatural.”. Dionysius was in Syria. Before this time there is found no word that could be rendered “supernatural” used of God's transcendence in the New Testament or in the Patristics. [9] They saw the primary ontological distinction as pertaining to God and creation. Thus while we would classify angels and demons as supernatural in the category with God, apart from natural things, they would classify angels and demons with the created order, blew the level of God as creator. [10]Leading up to the period in which began to emerge terms that would be understood as SN, used by Christian mystics such as Cyril and Dionysius, from the end pf the Apostolic age, the Church faced certain struggles over doctrines with a variety of groups all labeled under the same stigma as “Gnostic.” There was confusion over Chrisatian identity, confussion over the Christianity of Gnostic ideas of dualism between matter and spirit. The Orthodox Church emerged in dialectical relation to the gnostics. Even though they rejected the notion of the evil nature of matter that most such groups taught they created their own dualism with the moral superiority and ontological exaltation of spirit over matter. This forged the way for Neoplatonic Christianity.


Neoplatonism began with Plotinus who died around 270A.D.. Another major figure in the school was Proclus (d.485). that the notion of supernatural really begins to emerge. Neoplatonism is a variation on Platonic thinking that posited a totally transcendent origin of all things. This was a principle, not a personal god. They called it “the one” (a term used by Plato –sort of the “form of the forms”). The one did not create the world dirctly but the world emerged from it through a series of emanations, much like the particulars from the realm of the forms. For that reason the physical realm is not separated out from the one completely and thus the one is emanate within the world. Christian Platonists used hierarchies of angels and what we would call “supernatural beings” in place of emendations. [11] In names such hierarchies Dionysius used, among other things, the term huper hamousios. Hamousios was an important term in the Chronological disputes and the Trinitarian controversy it means “substance” or “being.” God is three persona in one substance. It could be translated essence. [12] Huper might be translated “superior.” It might be “above.” That plays into the notion of a realm above nature. Higher nature. Eugene R. Fairweather concures with Dionysius' use of the term and also points out that John of Damascus (676-749) also used it in the same way (speaking of God in the adverbial form Supernaturaliter). [13]


When various works of Dionysius were translated into Latin by John Scotus Erigena, he rendered it supernaturalis, from which we derive our term “supernatural.” [14]The term was given the Neoplatonic implication of superior substance. Thomas Aquinas preserved the Neoplatonic aspects of the word. God is the first cause who actively and purposefully creates all things, as opposed to the unmoved mover which works unconsciously and of necessity. Moreover, God endows the creatures with their own necessity so that morally each one is an end in itself. [15]Scholastic theology developed the dichotomy of the realm of SN above the realm of nature based upon the distinction between nature and Grace. The centerpiece of that theology is God's free gift of Grace to man in the redemptive act of Christ. This is a gratuity added to human nature and enables a new relationship between creature and creator. That relationship consists of adoptive showmanship and culminates in the elevation of human nature.[16]


The Trace of God, by Joseph Hinman, on Amazon. The 200 studies in this book prove that Mystical experience is real, this article just proved that the original concept of SN is mystical experiemce. Therefore, SN is real.


Part 2

Sources

[1] Jerry Coyne, “Can Science Test The Supernaural, Yes!,” Why Evolution is True. (6/27/2012) URL:

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/06/27/can-science-test-the-supernatural-yes/(accessed 1/26/2016)

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Emil Durkheim quoted in Benson Saler, “Supernatural as a Western Category,” Ethos, Vol. 5, issue 1, first published online 28 Oct., 2009, 31-53 35. PDF URL:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/eth.1977.5.1.02a00040/pdf (accessed 1/25/2016).

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid., 36

[7] Ibid., 39 Saler draws upon Jeager (1947) in trying to define this complex term, phusis.Basically it means “growth and emergence”

[8] Ibid., 38-39.

[9] Ibid., 43

[10] Ibid. 44.

[11] Henry de Lubecl , Remarques sur l'Hisoire du mot “Surnaturale.” Nouvelle Revue Theologique, (1934) 61: 225-249, 226.

[12] Saler, Op. Cit., 47.

[13] Eugene R. Fairweather, “Christianity and the Supernatural,” in New Theology no.1. New York: Macmillian, Martin E. Marty and Dean G. Peerman ed. 1964. 235-256, 239.

[14] Ibid. see also Fairweather, 239.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid., 48.

"Dabate" existence of God, Argument I: Affirmative Rebuttle

This Experience was very disappointing.No real debate occurred. Bowen never got beyond defining terms and saying everything is unclear until the Rebuttal at which time it'sit's too Late. No new arguments in rebuttals. Now I do answer those arguments but you are going to have to slog through a long repetitious bore of him saying "I'ts unclear" and me saying "I did make it clear he never engaged with my clarifications." This experience has given me good ammunition for atheistwatch.

We through the boring stuff eventually we do touch on God and Time but ironically  it's too late in the debate.

Please refer back to this document for my previous speech as it will prove what was said and how much i worked at clarifying the things he asked for and how he ignored those attempts.

second Affirmative  Constructive

http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2017/07/bowen-hinman-debate-existence-of-god.html

He starts with an example chosen to show how very unclear all my ideas are:

Bowen
The ABEAN Argument is VERY UNCLEAR

The main problem with the ABEAN argument is that it is UNCLEAR.  This is the same problem that I encountered repeatedly in my analysis and evaluation of Norman Geisler’s case for God in his book When Skeptics Ask.  The problem is not so much that ABEAN uses false premises or invalid inferences.  The problem is that nearly every claim in the argument is unclear, making it nearly impossible to rationally evaluate the argument.

Hinman
what is he calling unclear?: he does not say!!!! he never says he never once get's specific about what he needs to know or why it matters. He never once not one time dos he engage with the multiple attempts I made to clarify.  I did this for every single issue he says is unclear, I tried in three separate documents,and i showed the three in my Second Affirmative speech,

============================

Bowen

What am I calling unclear?  According to Hinman I don’t say what I’m calling unclear.
This complaint by Hinman is FALSE, as one can see by simply reading the very passage that Hinman just quoted:
…nearly every claim in the argument is unclear…That is what I am calling unclear.

Hinman
That does not answer my compliant, he;s just repeating the problem. what about the statement is unclear? Since he never engages with any of my clarifications I have to assume he is just doing his gimmick what he really means is he doesn't understand the issues.

Bowen

Since I don’t say that EVERY claim in the argument is unclear, Hinman might think that the expression “nearly every claim” is vague.  But Hinman knows that I have specified exactly which premises were problematic.  Here is another excerpt from Hinman’s 2nd response [bold font added]:

Hinman
Specifying which is not the issue, he never says How it is unclear, in what way? He never engages with the clarifications. 

============================
Bowen

I judged premises (1), (2), (4), (A), (5), (7), (8), (9), (10), and (11) to be VERY UNCLEAR because they each contain at least two different unclear words or phrases, which Hinman failed to adequately define or explain.

Hinman
He’s going to repeat the numbers,  He has nothing to say,he has made no argument

============================
Bowen

Clearly, I have specified exactly which premises are VERY UNCLEAR.    Hinman says that I have “nothing to say” and that I “made no argument”.
Once again, if Hinman had simply read the sentence that he just quoted, he would have known that his reply was FALSE.  Here is my argument, spelled out so that even a child can understand it:

1. IF a claim in ABEAN contains at least two different unclear words or phrases, THEN that claim is VERY UNCLEAR.

2. (1), (2), (4), (A), (5), (7), (8), (9), (10), and (11) are claims in the ABEAN argument which contain at least two different unclear words or phrases.

THEREFORE

3. (1), (2), (4), (A), (5), (7), (8), (9), (10), and (11) are claims in the ABEAN argument which are VERY UNCLEAR.

Hinman
This is what we here on planet earth refer to as an “argument”.  The sentence that he just quoted refutes his own complaint.

Obviously he;s just playing games all he has done here is to repeat the alligator. He's still not saying why it's unclear. He  wants the reader to think that saying if two words are unclear that is making an  argument, but it is not an argument, it;s just more accusation.

Bowen

OK.  I specified exactly which claims in ABEAN were VERY UNCLEAR, and I specified WHY I believe them to be VERY UNCLEAR, but Hinman still might continue to complain: But what exactly about each of those specific claims makes them unclear?

Hinman
 where did he say why they are unclear?I never saw that,now if he did say that it should be below, so le'ts see. 

Bowen

Hinman, however, knows exactly what about those specific claims makes them unclear, because I listed out the specific words and phrases in those claims that are the main cause of the unclarity of ABEAN.   Another excerpt from Hinman’s 2nd response shows he was aware of this list [bold font added]:

 Hinman

He just said listing terms is the same as saying why they are unclear, by no stretch is that true. The thing is if he had a reason for thinking they are unclear then he should talk about that reason in relation to my attempts at clarification he never does!

============================

(2) list of terms he finds unclear

 .

Bowen

The unclarity that I based this chart on is the unclarity of the meaning of several problematic words and phrases:

 .

Hinman
[of course I have defined each of these terms…the chart he refers to was just repeat of the accusation it has a word and said "unclear"by it  but proved nothing,

============================

Bowen

Hinman then walks step-by-step through my list of unclear words and phrases from ABEAN.  So, Hinman was perfectly well aware of the exact words and phrases that I believe are unclear and that are the basis for my conclusion that his ABEAN argument is VERY UNCLEAR.  His definitions are, in general,  less clear than the words he attempts to define, and thus they FAIL as definitions.

Hinman
He is still equating knowing which terms are unclear with knowing why they are unclear, what about them is unclear?, that's so nuts,

Example: were he to have asked ground of being implies something outside of being that manifests being how could something outside of be be? Had he said that I would say Ok that's unclear I HAVE to WORK ON THAT,  HE NEVER ONCE ENGAGES WITH ANY IDEAS!

Bowen

C. TWO EXAMPLES OF HINMAN’S INTELLECTUAL BLINDNESS

[ok now we are getting some place right?] 

I think it is obvious to most readers of my posts and Hinman’s posts about ABEAN, that this argument is unclear and that many words and phrases in this argument are unclear.  But Hinman has some sort of intellectual blindness that prevents him from seeing what is obvious to most of the rest of us, and this blindness comes across loud and clear with his initial comments about two of his unclear terms:

Hinman

Wrong we are getting nowhere because he is really saying  "I don't understand this you don't either so rather than do my homework and study on Tillich I'm going to ask the reader to debate for me and use your own lack of understanding as a pretend argument so ignore Joe's clarifications.

The blindness to which he refers is knowledge, because I've studied Tillich and I understand it, once  you understated the concept you can't dis-understand it. He assumes because he is blind I must be blind too so what I see must be illusion.

============================

Now it looks like we are going to get into some terms but don't count on it,meanwhile remember just defining terms is the beginning of debate it can't be debate it'self  no debate ever took place.

but here are some terms he throws up to make it look  like he has an argument:

• naturalistic phenomena

Hinman: This is obvious,self evident, it;s a common term…

[…]

• temporal

Hinman: another self evident term that everyone understands…

============================
Bowen

The meanings of these words are “obvious” and “self-evident”  and “everyone understands” what they mean, according to Hinman.
These are problematic philosophical and theological concepts that REQUIRE clarification and definition.  The fact that Hinman cannot understand this obvious point shows that he is not intellectually ready to argue intelligently for the existence of God, or for any other philosophical claim.

Hinman:
I defilement both terms in the in answering this question in the preliminary docshere's whatI readwaid he took out avboe: his is obvious,self evident, it;s a common term there is no reason to assume I'm using it in any unusual way. Yet I did define it last time and in fact I used your ever loving secular web to do so,quoting Keith Augustine.

He not only ignores my answer but basically lies in saying I never defined it.I also remarked in that previous doc (2AC) "I specifically addressed this phraseology as far back as the Q/A post" so he's lying, 

from "first Defense"  Doc:

http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2017/07/first-defense-of-god-argument-1.html

Eternal: Not limited to the duration of time

same document on naturalism

My use of naturalism unless specifically relating to atheist argument is what Keith
Augustine calls "Pluralistic naturalism:"

There are two main kinds of naturalism: materialism and pluralistic naturalism. Materialism, or physicalism, is a "monistic" form of naturalism in that it maintains that only one basic kind of stuff exists--physical stuff. Pluralistic naturalism, by contrast, combines naturalism with ontological pluralism, the idea that there is more than just one basic kind of stuff. Thus while materialists reject the reality of (irreducibly) nonphysical stuff, pluralists affirm the existence of at least one kind of (irreducibly) nonphysical stuff.[5][[5] Keith Augustine, "Pluralistic Naturalism," Secular Web, (accessed 7/6/17) 2003, URL

https://infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/naturalism/pluralistic.html]

Bowen

First of all, “naturalistic phenomena” presumably has the same meaning as “natural phenomena”.   We understand the word “natural” in relation to the contrasting word “supernatural”.  These two words represent categories, categories that presumably constitute a dichotomy.  Everything is either natural or supernatural.

Hinman:

problem here is here we not discuss this before, one of the stipulations for bebating I made up front was no new argument in  rebuttals! It is standard in all organized debate. This is a new argument in rebuttals. I will not answer it because he has already lost it, it should not be here.

Bowen

I suppose there could be composite things that have both natural components and supernatural components.  Most Christians, for example, believe that humans are composed of a physical (natural) body and a non-physical (supernatural) soul. But human bodies are completely natural things, and human souls are completely supernatural things, so at the level of the basic components that make up human beings, there are no quasi-natural things, and no quasi-supernatural things.

That's just an extension of the new argument he has not yet told us why we need to know that to pass judgement on my argument.

Bowen

If one does NOT have a clear understanding of what the word “supernatural” means, then one does NOT have a clear understanding of what “natural” means.  But the word “supernatural” is highly problematic, and it should be obvious to anyone with some degree of intellectual sophistication that the meaning of “supernatural” is highly problematic.

Hinman:
This is new argumemt because I never talked about SN, it;s not in the original argument, that makes this also a red herring,

1.All naturalistic phenomena are contingent and temporal.
2. Either some aspect of being is eternal and necessary unless or something came from nothing (creation ex nihilo)
3. Something did not come from nothing.
4. Some aspect of being is eternal and necessary [=GOB]. (from 2,and 3)
5. Some aspect of being does not consist of naturalistic phenomena. (from 1 and 4)
6. Some people experience a sense of the numinous [=SON].
7. The SON is not evoked by any naturalistic phenomena.
8. The SON experienced by some people is evoked by GOB.
9. GOB = God.
10. If 8 and 9, then some people are warranted in believing in God.
11. Therefore, some people are warranted in believing in God. (from 8, 9, and 10)

Bowen

We have argued about the meaning of the word “supernatural” on more than one occasion here at The Secular Outpost.  In fact, I and others have argued with Mr. Hinman about the meaning of the word “supernatural” here at The Secular Outpost!  He has no excuse for thinking that the meaning of the word “supernatural” is clear and unproblematic.  Thus, Hinman has no excuse for the idiotic belief that “naturalistic phenomena” is a clear and unproblematic term.

Hinman:
 He is trying to motivate past prejudice and ignorance (his) to use it as evidence to back his red herring. Still new in rebuttals and thus cannot be allowed it is extremely unfair, you know he waited until the end to bring up real ideas and actually start discussing, the whole exercise is a huge disappointment. I was looking forward t  a challenge it was just a farce.


Bowen

The word “temporal” contrasts, as Hinman himself points out, with the word “eternal”.  Once again, if one does NOT have a clear understanding of what “eternal” means, then one does NOT have a clear understanding of what “temporal” means.  But the word “eternal” is obviously problematic.  First, it is obviously ambiguous between at least two different senses:

DEFINITION 1:X is eternal IF AND ONLY IF X has always existed in the past, and X exists now, and X will always continue to exist in the future. DEFINITION 2:X is eternal IF AND ONLY IF X exists outside of time.I suspect that Hinman takes “eternal” to mean something like what it means in DEFINITION 2.  But this understanding of “eternal” is inherently problematic.  DEFINITION 2 is itself unclear and problematic.  What does it mean for something to be “outside of time”?  How can we tell whether or not something is “outside of time”?  Is this idea logically coherent, or does it contain a logical contradiction?

Hinman:
 This is all new in rebuttals. I defined these terms in constructive speeches it was up to him to make something of them he waited to late late.  Besides he's not really connecting them to my argumnet. What about my argumnet is disproved as a result of this?

(1) These are two definitions of the word "eternal" but they are not at odds. If there is no time there is no end, no duration. Something beyond time is also always already and can't cease. Ceasing is a temporally bound construct. So the two definitions are just aspects of the same reality.

(2) Beyond time is a coherent concept in modern physics,(Hawking, brief History of Time) [1]


 Bowen

Furthermore, how can something CHANGE if it exists “outside of time”?  If something that exists “outside of time” cannot change, then how can something “outside of time”  communicate with people who are “inside of time”?  

Hinman:

(1) Prove that communicating involves change for God.

(2) Prove that communicating involves ratiocination, for example God could give us innate ideas at creation so he doesn't have to talk to us. There is first moment of time if you are in time. We don't how it is outside of time but it can still be that what we see as first moment is created by God.

(3) He can enter time and history as a man and communicate in that form.

(3) in one of the preparatory documents I answered this, that Eastern Orthodoxy speaks of God's essence and his energies, his energies enter the time stream as God's actions.


Bowen

How can something “outside of time” make decisions and take actions that affect people who are “inside of time”?  Unless there are clear answers available to such questions, we don’t clearly understand what the word “eternal” (as used by Hinman) means, and thus we don’t understand what the word “temporal” means either.

Hinman
That is covered under the concept of Ground of being. Time is part of being. The consequences of both time and beyond time are under the reality of god, Those are laws of physics and God is the author of laws of physics. Metaphorically, all of realty is in the mind of God.  Thus, God frames time and beyond time as a subject of his  mind. We think of beyond time as a big empty void but if God is the ground of being beyond time would be in the mind of God.[2] [3]


Bowen

This is NOT the sort of thing I expect to have to explain to an intellectually sophisticated person.  These points should be obvious to anyone who has some degree of intellectual sophistication in matters of theology and philosophy of religion.  Hinman’s inability to see and understand these obvious points is astounding to me.

Hinman:

Yes, this is NOT the sort of thing I expect to have to explain to an intellectually sophisticated person, so i will explain them to Bowen. You are working in silly convectional outmoded concept that I exploded years ago, you save this stuff for the end on purpose and that is extremely unfair,dishonest and unethical-- violates the understanding we had.  I have three words for you:Alfred North Whitehead.

go read

 Bowen

The meanings of these words and phrases are NOT “self-evident” nor are they “obvious” nor are they words that “everyone understands”.  Such comments reflect the thinking of a person who is lacking in intellectual sophistication, of a person who is not yet ready to present an intelligent argument for the existence of God.

 Hinman:
Yes the one;s I said are are,I did not say all of them I said temporal is self evidence. Well he's giving me good blogging material. Course a lot o those blog pieces will say: "I was robbed!"

 Notes

[1] Stephen Hawking,  A Brief History of Time.  Bantam; 10th Anniversary edition (September 1, 1998)

[2] Amot Gaoswami, interviwed by Craig Hamilton, "The Self Aware universe: An Interviewer" 

http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~sai/goswam1.htm

Goswami is a physicist at U Oregon.

Amit Goswami: The current worldview has it that everything is made of matter, and everything can be reduced to the elementary particles of matter, the basic constituents—building blocks—of matter. And cause arises from the interactions of these basic building blocks or elementary particles; elementary particles make atoms, atoms make molecules, molecules make cells, and cells make brain. But all the way, the ultimate cause is always the interactions between the elementary particles. This is the belief—all cause moves from the elementary particles. This is what we call "upward causation." So in this view, what human beings—you and I—think of as our free will does not really exist. It is only an epiphenomenon or secondary phenomenon, secondary to the causal power of matter. And any causal power that we seem to be able to exert on matter is just an illusion. This is the current paradigm. Now, the opposite view is that everything starts with consciousness.That is, consciousness is the ground of all being. In this view, consciousness imposes "downward causation." In other words, our free will is real. When we act in the world we really are acting with causal power. This view does not deny that matter also has causal potency—it does not deny that there is causal power from elementary particles upward, so there is upward causation—but in addition it insists that there is also downward causation. It shows up in our creativity and acts of free will, or when we make moral decisions. In those occasions we are actually witnessing downward causation by consciousness.

[3] Gregory E. Ganssle, "God and Time," Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: a Peer Revied Resource, 

http://www.iep.utm.edu/god-time/

Ganssle is at Yale. This is an excellent article many different views by modern theologians dealing with problems of God and Time.

Apendix

I. HINMAN’S REPLIES TO MY OBJECTIONS TO ABEAN

A. POSTS IN THIS DEBATE THAT DISCUSS ABEAN:

Joe Hinman’s ABEAN Argument for God

http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2017/07/opening-argument-resolved-that-belief.html

My Criticism of Hinman’s ABEAN Argument for God

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2017/07/04/hinmans-abean-argument-part-2-objections-11-1/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2017/07/06/hinmans-abean-argument-part-3-objections/

Joe Hinman’s Responses to My Criticism of His ABEAN Argument

http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2017/07/first-defense-of-god-argument-1.html

http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2017/07/bowen-hinman-debate-existence-of-god.html