This 2015 paper ought to provoke provoke an interesting discussion:
On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit
Abstract
Although bullshit is common in everyday life and has attracted attention from philosophers, its reception (critical or ingenuous) has not, to our knowledge, been subject to empirical investigation. Here we focus on pseudo-profound bullshit, which consists of seemingly impressive assertions that are presented as true and meaningful but are actually vacuous. We presented participants with bullshit statements consisting of buzzwords randomly organized into statements with syntactic structure but no discernible meaning (e.g., “Wholeness quiets infinite phenomena”). Across multiple studies, the propensity to judge bullshit statements as profound was associated with a variety of conceptually relevant variables (e.g., intuitive cognitive style, supernatural belief). Parallel associations were less evident among profundity judgments for more conventionally profound (e.g., “A wet person does not fear the rain”) or mundane (e.g., “Newborn babies require constant attention”) statements. These results support the idea that some people are more receptive to this type of bullshit and that detecting it is not merely a matter of indiscriminate skepticism but rather a discernment of deceptive vagueness in otherwise impressive sounding claims. Our results also suggest that a bias toward accepting statements as true may be an important component of pseudo-profound bullshit receptivity.
Revelation is difficult. That is why omnipotence is necessary. If it was easy anyone could do it.
peace
Good book that one.
I Highly recommend it if you want to understand this stuff and don’t have time for the more difficult “God with us” tome
peace
Woodbine:
Yes, he thought the Fall was retroactive. Adam and Eve ate the fruit; therefore dinosaurs had to suffer and die millions of years earlier.
Unless revelation without incarnation is logically impossible your version of God is not omnipotent.
Of course the fall was retroactive.
Do you think God was surprised or unprepared?
What a silly strawman god you rejected as a hormone charged adolescent.
pity you still feel the need to fight him
peace
fifth,
Makes sense that you’d think so.
After all, if the physical Jesus traveled backward in time in order to impregnate his mother, leading to his own birth, then why shouldn’t the Fall be retroactive?
Batshit ideas are welcome in fifth’s head.
Who said anyone impregnated anyone? Ever hear of parthenogenesis?
The Bible says Mary was found to be with Child from the Holy Spirit no mention of any physical contact whatsoever .
It’s only the Mormons who think that God was having sex.
That’s quite a strawman you rejected there keiths
peace
I didn’t say he fucked her, fifth. I said he impregnated her.
im·preg·nate
imˈpreɡˌnāt/
verb
1.
make (a woman or female animal) pregnant.
I repeat:
Let’s see you try to dig yourself out of this one:
Right and I think it is logically impossible.
I’m willing to be persuaded otherwise if you want to give a go explaining how an atemporal spatially infinite God communicates to temporal finite limited creatures with out risk of misunderstanding ,
I’m all ears
peace
Ok if Mary was born with the innate capacity to give birth by Parthenogenesis I don’t see any difficulty at all
Her pregnancy could be (in fact was) predestined from the very first instant of the Big Bang.
In fact everything that ever happened in our universe could be the result of one single act of creation.
That is nothing but orthodox Calvinism as far as I can tell.
peace
LOL. In FifthWorld, the time-traveling physical Jesus responsible for impregnating his own mother is “nothing but orthodox Calvinism”.
This thread is a keeper.
Bookmarked.
That’s about as pointless as trying to explain Bruce Banner’s jeans…..and less valuable.
Woodbine,
And actually not all that difficult. But fifth has no interest in pursuing this himself because he wants, and needs, a particular answer — the answer that he’s already latched onto.
If incarnation isn’t necessary for knowledge, then fifth’s presuppositionalist house of cards collapses. (It collapses anyway, since the concept of incarnation is not the exclusive property of Christianity, but fifth either doesn’t realize that or pretends not to.) The prospect of collapse scares him, so he’d rather not think about it, instead leaving it to his critics to do his thinking for him.
Meanwhile, fifth’s physical Jesus travels backward in time in order to accomplish his own incarnation in Mary’s womb.
“Nothing but orthodox Calvinism,” fifth assures us.
John Calvin is rolling over in his grave.
Yes, if the Christian God of scripture does not exist then absurdity is all that is left.
I think I made that clear from the very beginning.
quote:
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
(Col 1:15-17)
For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father.
(Eph 2:18)
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
(Joh 14:6)
end quote:
Actually it is, when I speak of incarnation I don’t mean the embodiment of lesser Hindu demigods.
I mean nothing less than the Great I Am taking on human flesh so that you have one person who is fully God and fully man at the very same time.
Two natures one person in hypostatic union.
Immanuel
God with us
peace
If you read this in the voice of a North Korean news anchor it’s even funnier.
Yes, you are. You’re just so terrified of having them disproven that you call them something else in a transparent and futile attempt to protect them from challenge.
No, you need to show that they can do what you want them to do. You’ve been asked to do so repeatedly. So far, crickets.
Quoting a book that is demonstrably full of contradictions does not support any argument.
Tell us again how Saul died?
You still don’t understand burden of proof. You’re making the claim, it’s up to you to support it. If you can’t, honesty demands you retract it.
The nonsense crammed into your head before you had a chance to develop critical thinking skills is not the default.
You’ve harped on it repeatedly. You’ve never supported that claim with evidence or reason.
Of course not. He just “presupposes” it. Who needs evidence or argument when you can declare philosophical victory by mere fiat?
The minimal form of argument maximizes it’s informational content. You guys are not keeping up with ID!
Somehow, the fact that he very much believes he’s right is supposed to be important to us.
No one knows why.
Glen Davidson
Well put (both of you).
He also assumes that his views are the default that need to be proven wrong rather than supported themselves.
Yes, that’s the entire idea of presuppositional apologetics. It’s all about pretending that one’s own views do not need to be supported by evidence or by argument, since they are the default. And they are the default because he says they are. It’s all about declaring victory without playing the game.
keiths:
fifth:
You dodged what I wrote, which is that
You need to show that incarnation is a prerequisite for knowledge. Otherwise your dire warning is just hot air. You keep telling us “It’s either Christianity or absurdity!” When we ask you to show us, you can’t. You just repeat the assertion.
You haven’t even shown that incarnation is necessary for knowledge, much less an exclusively Christian version of incarnation.
fifth,
Share this thread with your pastor. I want to see his reaction to your time-traveling, Mary-impregnating physical Jesus.
Why the hesitation? After all, you’ve assured us that it’s “nothing but orthodox Calvinism”.
I think finite minds will always have a possibility of misunderstanding. Maybe that is why you have presuppose incarnation makes a difference.
Ah, but they are merely ‘apparent’ contradictions.
Which is another way of saying ‘we don’t care what the Bible says’.
This is only fifth’s presuppositionalism. The real presuppositionalism has its sane form, but fifth has nothing to do with it, even though he refers to the authorities for support. Just like he assumes that his “practical exercise” is somehow practical, is an exercise, and works as a Turing test, none of which is true.
Granted, FMM’s version of presuppositionalism is nothing at all like what Van Til and others actually developed and defended. Needless to say I’m not sympathetic to their views, either.
Erik,
For certain limited definitions of ‘sane’.
What I think is interesting is the tendency in Reformed thought to make excuses for asserting beliefs without reason and evidence. You have the presuppositionalists, of course, but you also have Plantinga and the whole ‘reformed epistemology’ movement. ‘Properly basic beliefs’ and all that.
I fully expect that you will find Christianity to be foolish.
The only reason I share my presuppositions is that I was asked. Keiths must find them to be important because he started a thread to discuss them.
on the other hand I’m interested in your presuppositions. I want to know if they are consistent and sufficient.
The problem is no one on your side seems to be willing to explore them. You simple assume them with no examination
Peace
Just to be clear
you don’t think that God can reveal so that we can truly know?
You do realize that this position was true any knowledge whatsoever would be impossible don’t you.
peace
fifth,
What are you talking about?
I started this thread to discuss pseudo-profound bullshit, of which your goofy claim was merely one example:
Quit prevaricating.
It’s one thing for you to repeat your mindless tripe without ever considering anything else, it’s quite another for you to make up anything about anyone else because you’re too uninterested in the truth to get it right.
That you reveal yourself to contain such a moral vacuum speaks volumes about your intellectual bankruptcy.
Glen Davidson
My “views” are the default for me. Just as yours are for you.
If you wish to convince me that my views are incorrect then the burden of proof is on you.
On the other hand I’m interested is discussing your “views”. I’d like to know if they are consistent and sufficient.
Apparently you are unwilling or unable to accomplish that sort of self reflection. As demonstrated by your refusal to answer the “how do you know?” question.
peace
Your strange interest in Bible study and discussing my worldview instead of your own.
peace
Would you please detail it here. I’d be interested in what you find to be “sane” about it
Thanks
I’d love to consider your presuppositions
please
For me to do so you need to lay them on the table. As I have done.
Tell me how you know stuff? I want to see if you have an answer that is not subject to further regress.
It should not be difficult.
peace
fifth,
The thread is about pseudo-profound bullshit. You’re just one source of the steaming product.
This is just goofy:
Everything doesn’t have to be about you, fifth.
fifth, to Patrick:
Poor fifth is desperate to deflect attention away from the mess he’s made in this thread.
Apparently it does when it comes to you. 😉
You are constantly questioning and quizzing me about what I presuppose. Even to the point of starting a thread about my position on the unity of truth.
If you wanted to discuss other stuff it would be easy enough but you can’t seem to help your self
peace
See, there you go focusing only on what I do again.
You want all the attention on me and my actions
It’s almost like you are obsessed with me
😉
peace
Oh, please. I shoot down your claims because you keep bringing them up.
I’d be happy to get back to the topic of this thread. Perhaps you would too, since this thread has been disastrous for you.
It was you who brought up my presuppositions when newton pointed out that my understanding of truth is perfectly rational given my view of God.
Eric also showed that unified truth is assumed with any theory of Truth that is not flat.
I’d be happy to discuss your comprehensive theory of truth and what it implies but you need to lay it out in some detail.
why not give it a go?
peace
Are you kidding me I’m having a ball.
I love nothing more than quoting Scripture and thinking about Christ. I find it interesting that you like that sort of thing as well.
peace
keiths:
fifth:
Then by all means, send the URL to your pastor and fellow congregants. I’m sure they’d “have a ball” with your time-traveling Mary-impregnating physical Jesus, too.
Nothing to be ashamed of, right? Just “orthodox Calvinism”.
fifth,
No, I brought up your claim that revelation is not piecemeal, since that was the context into which you plopped your pseudo-profundity:
fifth:
No, he claimed that. He ran for the hills when I asked him to actually support his claim:
I think we will discuss it at tomorrow’s bible study. Like I said we Christians talk about this stuff all the time
That is your straw man.
My Jesus is the Alpha and Omega that is ever present and ever active in his creation.
No need for time travel or insemination.
quote:
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
(Col 1:15-17)
end quote:
“All things” would certainly include Mary and the body he offered up for us.
It would be odd to think “all things” only apply to stuff after AD 1
peace