Dear Christians, in case it is relevant to you or someone you know:
If human beliefs are fallible, that applies to the human belief that the Bible (the Church, Pope, etc.) is infallible.
Even if the Bible IS infallible, your BELIEF in it is not.
Application: if reason or evidence challenges your belief in a divine source, you should NOT automatically subject your evidence to [your prior belief in] that source.
Privileging one fallible belief over all others is epistemically bad practice. The habit leads you to be a prisoner of whoever can convince you that THEY speak for God (even *if* they do).
Billie Eilish says after doing a little bit of research she was really scared of climate change.
Well I’ve done a little bit of research and what I found was quite the opposite!
Another important distinction is between general providence and meticulous providence. Then, of course, there are those crazy logical moments that theologians say exist in the life of God. There are these debates about natural knowledge, middle knowledge, and free knowledge.
@Brady_H Cool. I am much more of a strength than jujutsu athlete. However, I love to build more endurance. I used to just go crazy with high intensity intervals, whether they be sprinting on the bike or rowing. However, I found that doing very low intensity, jogs/rucks = better recovery
@Brady_H Simple commen sense points to being at a high state of physical readiness at regardless of age is associated with longevity. Any age. Fit > unfit.
My favourite poem by Robert Frost, though not his best, is “The Trial by Existence.” It is one of the few that I have taken to intoning to myself.
“The pure fate to which you go
Admits no memory of choice,
Or the woe were not earthly woe
To which you give the assenting voice.”
For decades, top scientists said climate change threatened civilization. But the data never showed that. And now, the evidence is overwhelming that scientists and the media deliberately misled the public on fires, ice, food, floods, heat, islands, coral, sea level, & hurricanes.
It took me five years to find the courage to speak out against climate alarmism.
I was only able to do so by following in the footsteps of brave climate realists like @curryja, @AlexEpstein, @ShellenbergerMD, Steve Koonin, @BjornLomborg, and countless others who faced real censorship and ostracism.
I’m glad Bill Gates has finally found common sense, but I hope he really reflects on the damage his fearmongering caused.
"Oh please"? Uncharacteristically dismissive, Steve.
Fair's fair--put Jerry Coyne's take alongside this excerpt from an email I received from Alexander Batthyany, the author of Threshold, the book-length treatment of terminal lucidity, regarding the Psychology Today article suggesting that the success of Zolpidem in related cases might indicate that within-the-brain mechanisms explain TL:
The article’s main argument seems to reflect a perspective that does not fully account for the current understanding of the neuroscience of dementia and related neurocognitive conditions in which terminal lucidity has been observed.
The advanced dementias are not merely neurotransmitter-dependent conditions but involve profound and irreversible neuronal atrophy. The very architecture of cognition — cortical and subcortical networks alike—disintegrates; networks for memory, language, and self-modeling are not simply offline, but have been eroded by extensive atrophy and neuronal loss.
Even “paradoxical lucidity” after zolpidem acts only when circuits are intact but inhibited: Zolpidem-induced lucidity thus isn’t “paradoxical”; it’s an expected pharmacological effect. In advanced dementia, those circuits are structurally gone—Zolpidem doesn’t restore what no longer exists. It’s not a model for terminal lucidity.
If a mere rebalancing of neurotransmitters could restore such functions, it would have been achieved long ago, and with far greater clinical success, given how comparatively easy it is to pharmacologically elevate neurotransmitter levels.