I’m going to guess he’s referring to 2 Corinthians 11. It’s arguable that a struggle with a river or with the sea might have been understood also as a struggle against the spirits resident in the waters. Stoicheia in both the physical and the spiritual sense.
Hi everyone! I misspoke: the verse is 2 Cor 11:26, and the suggestion that Paul is being threatened by the tutelary deity of the river was Paula Fredriksen’s originally. But it’s not in Acts; mea culpa.
I watched it when it was posted a few days ago and now I'm very curious about Indian metaphysics.
Dr. Hart, do you have any articles, lectures, or books on the mechanics of scriptural inspiration and how we determine the truth of a matter when we know that Scripture isn't innerant? I feel like I've merely "devolved" to a theist that likes the flavor of Christianity. Im not quite sure what to do with it completely, but I feel drawn to Christ as the manifested Logos.
Well, there’s nothing wrong with that to me - it’s probably a healthier way of looking at things. The concept of “religion” is a fairly new one, and I dislike it. There are many traditions which practice religiō, I would say - holding that one tradition has the fullness of revelation (or, at the least, cleaves truest to Truth) does not mean other traditions are completely illegitimate in and of themselves. Since we hold Truth to be a crucified and exalted Jew, we throw in our lot with the Church, but we can still honor other traditions and learn from their perspectives. We’re all practicing the same virtue, to a greater or lesser extent (and I would say there are good and bad traditions) - we just have a unique tradition, which we humbly propose as, in its teleological incarnation, the proper description of things.
I myself wonder at the vast time taken on Earth for the evolution of the eukaryotic cell. Perhaps an indication that that was quite an improbable event? Although, it's hard to extrapolate from a single case, of course
It is a right proper miracle even evolved life muddles on; the biochemical machinery of the cell is both obscenely complicated and exquisitely balanced. I would certainly not be surprised if life was extremely rare. Do note, though, that if our current cosmological model of the Universe is correct, then it is quite possible that it is spatially flat or open. Again, assuming this is so, then the cosmos would actually be infinite in spatial extent with similar matter density (on cosmic scales) throughout - and then I would expect the chances of there not being alien life at least somewhere far beyond the observable universe to be, well, zero.
Still, there’s more under Heaven and Earth than we’ve dreamt of - we shouldn’t assume prima facie that the current standard model of cosmology is necessarily correct (there are some issues with it, despite its many successes), and we certainly shouldn’t assume with full certainty that our inductive abilities can take us far past the boundaries of observable cosmos.
Scanning through the paper proper and some of the surrounding literature, there very well could be discrepancies here! At the same time, there could be alternate explanations - perhaps we have a faulty understanding of galactic formation, or perhaps there were methodological errors in the observations.
Then again, possibly not - tensions between ΛCDM and observation are already well-documented (e.g. the Hubble and σ_8 tensions). This is of no great concern; ΛCDM is remarkably impressive due to its (relative) simplicity and fantastic performance in many areas, but it’s certainly not the end-all-be-all (it’s classical, for crying out loud).
I think (with all due respect to those that hold this position) that people who believe the universe is teeming with life do so for philosophical rather than scientific reasons.
Wait, what? The universe is far too large not to have evolved all sorts of life. And scientifically speaking, the odds overwhelmingly favor the appearance of intelligent life more than once. It’s not visiting us, or anything, but it surely exists. Yes, evolution on earth took a long time & extremely precise circumstances. But there are two trillion galaxies. So extremely precise circumstances will occur many times over.
And yet we have no evidence of any life elsewhere in the universe and no theory of abiogenesis, even on Earth. To claim that life must exist elsewhere is to issue promissary notes that can probably never be cashed in.
We have no evidence for obvious reasons—see again size of universe. We have several theories of how life arose on earth, you just don’t believe any of them. Which is fine, but, having arisen once, it can surely do so again. Not that we were the first, I’d imagine.
Anyway, not worth arguing about. But I sure don’t get it. Seems almost self-evident to me. As Stephen Jay Gould said to an interviewer who asked if he believed in extraterrestrial intelligence, “Don’t you?”
That might be right. For my part, I think that there are so many possible organisms, and so many possible minds, that it would be an extreme waste for the universe to only have generated one tree of life. Perhaps that's a bigger motivator for my belief than any empirical evidence. However, I guess one can always appeal to the size of the universe (which may be much larger than we can observe), and the apparent non-zero probability of abiogenesis. Although, I suppose it is possible that abiogenesis was a literally miraculous event.
I will make one, and only one, modern fantasy recommendation because he wrote a (1) Nabakovian parodic trilogy of the entire epic fantasy genre that subsumes almost every trope in existance, (2) in a Proustian-length picaresque, (3) from predominately the FIRST person perspective a la the journals of Casanova and the tragic figure of Savinien de Cyrano de Bergerac, (4) mixed with a frame story a la Scheherazade's thousand and one, (5) and the language is actually good.
THE NAME OF THE WIND by Patrick Rothfuss. You two also share barbilic features, both in your beards's sizes and shapes and colors.
Short of that, as you say, the greatest fantasies are all foundational texts of peoples. So it's a lot to live up to in the modern world.
Unrelated: would you (have you) ever tried your hand at short science fiction and fantasy?
Dr. Hart, may I ask what your general thoughts are on the Farrer hypothesis as a possible solution to the synoptic problem, compared to the Q hypothesis?
Thanks for posting, I’m here as a new reader and enjoy these long conversations.
You mentioned reading using a Kindle device and some of handicaps it presents including the inability to flip quickly through a book and that the device seems to encourage a straight read-through. Have you found ways to improve your Kindle experience over time?
On reading, have you written any essays about your practices in reading? I have read Adler’s “How to Read” which encourages different levels of reading to allow for some level of breadth and depth depending on the reader’s need. Do you have any methods that allow you to move through a text relatively quickly while still absorbing and appreciating it?
Actually, what I lamented was the inability to flip back easily to an earlier passage I might want to reread. I never actually race through; if anything, I tend to linger when a passage impresses me. So I’m not a good guide to economical reading.
For purposes of abbreviation, we could just start calling these AA meetings.
Quick question, David - you mentioned St. Paul fights a river deity in Acts! Where is this?
No, surely no one said anything of the sort.
He mentions it from 01:09:45-01:09:52.
I’m going to guess he’s referring to 2 Corinthians 11. It’s arguable that a struggle with a river or with the sea might have been understood also as a struggle against the spirits resident in the waters. Stoicheia in both the physical and the spiritual sense.
Yes, David A. says, "Acts talks about Paul fighting a river. It's not just a river, it's a river god." Thinking of Achilles?
Hi everyone! I misspoke: the verse is 2 Cor 11:26, and the suggestion that Paul is being threatened by the tutelary deity of the river was Paula Fredriksen’s originally. But it’s not in Acts; mea culpa.
Ah, so I just guessed.
I watched it when it was posted a few days ago and now I'm very curious about Indian metaphysics.
Dr. Hart, do you have any articles, lectures, or books on the mechanics of scriptural inspiration and how we determine the truth of a matter when we know that Scripture isn't innerant? I feel like I've merely "devolved" to a theist that likes the flavor of Christianity. Im not quite sure what to do with it completely, but I feel drawn to Christ as the manifested Logos.
(Currently reading "The Atheist Delusion")
Thanks!
"I feel like I've merely "devolved" to a theist that likes the flavor of Christianity."
I know that feeling, and I blame the two Davids in the video above for my plight.
Well, there’s nothing wrong with that to me - it’s probably a healthier way of looking at things. The concept of “religion” is a fairly new one, and I dislike it. There are many traditions which practice religiō, I would say - holding that one tradition has the fullness of revelation (or, at the least, cleaves truest to Truth) does not mean other traditions are completely illegitimate in and of themselves. Since we hold Truth to be a crucified and exalted Jew, we throw in our lot with the Church, but we can still honor other traditions and learn from their perspectives. We’re all practicing the same virtue, to a greater or lesser extent (and I would say there are good and bad traditions) - we just have a unique tradition, which we humbly propose as, in its teleological incarnation, the proper description of things.
Out of curiosity, Dr. Hart, do you have any opinions on the prevalence of life (intelligent or otherwise) in the universe?
No. But the universe is very large, so one hopes some of what’s beyond our reach has someone to appreciate it.
I myself wonder at the vast time taken on Earth for the evolution of the eukaryotic cell. Perhaps an indication that that was quite an improbable event? Although, it's hard to extrapolate from a single case, of course
It is a right proper miracle even evolved life muddles on; the biochemical machinery of the cell is both obscenely complicated and exquisitely balanced. I would certainly not be surprised if life was extremely rare. Do note, though, that if our current cosmological model of the Universe is correct, then it is quite possible that it is spatially flat or open. Again, assuming this is so, then the cosmos would actually be infinite in spatial extent with similar matter density (on cosmic scales) throughout - and then I would expect the chances of there not being alien life at least somewhere far beyond the observable universe to be, well, zero.
Still, there’s more under Heaven and Earth than we’ve dreamt of - we shouldn’t assume prima facie that the current standard model of cosmology is necessarily correct (there are some issues with it, despite its many successes), and we certainly shouldn’t assume with full certainty that our inductive abilities can take us far past the boundaries of observable cosmos.
The standard modle is most likely wrong. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/scientists-have-discovered-the-impossible-galaxies-dawn-of-the-universe/
Scanning through the paper proper and some of the surrounding literature, there very well could be discrepancies here! At the same time, there could be alternate explanations - perhaps we have a faulty understanding of galactic formation, or perhaps there were methodological errors in the observations.
Then again, possibly not - tensions between ΛCDM and observation are already well-documented (e.g. the Hubble and σ_8 tensions). This is of no great concern; ΛCDM is remarkably impressive due to its (relative) simplicity and fantastic performance in many areas, but it’s certainly not the end-all-be-all (it’s classical, for crying out loud).
I think (with all due respect to those that hold this position) that people who believe the universe is teeming with life do so for philosophical rather than scientific reasons.
Wait, what? The universe is far too large not to have evolved all sorts of life. And scientifically speaking, the odds overwhelmingly favor the appearance of intelligent life more than once. It’s not visiting us, or anything, but it surely exists. Yes, evolution on earth took a long time & extremely precise circumstances. But there are two trillion galaxies. So extremely precise circumstances will occur many times over.
I hope so. But until we can actually explain life, which we can’t, the mathematical probabilities are hard to calculate. Again, though—very big place.
And yet we have no evidence of any life elsewhere in the universe and no theory of abiogenesis, even on Earth. To claim that life must exist elsewhere is to issue promissary notes that can probably never be cashed in.
We have no evidence for obvious reasons—see again size of universe. We have several theories of how life arose on earth, you just don’t believe any of them. Which is fine, but, having arisen once, it can surely do so again. Not that we were the first, I’d imagine.
Anyway, not worth arguing about. But I sure don’t get it. Seems almost self-evident to me. As Stephen Jay Gould said to an interviewer who asked if he believed in extraterrestrial intelligence, “Don’t you?”
That might be right. For my part, I think that there are so many possible organisms, and so many possible minds, that it would be an extreme waste for the universe to only have generated one tree of life. Perhaps that's a bigger motivator for my belief than any empirical evidence. However, I guess one can always appeal to the size of the universe (which may be much larger than we can observe), and the apparent non-zero probability of abiogenesis. Although, I suppose it is possible that abiogenesis was a literally miraculous event.
Dr. Hart —
I will make one, and only one, modern fantasy recommendation because he wrote a (1) Nabakovian parodic trilogy of the entire epic fantasy genre that subsumes almost every trope in existance, (2) in a Proustian-length picaresque, (3) from predominately the FIRST person perspective a la the journals of Casanova and the tragic figure of Savinien de Cyrano de Bergerac, (4) mixed with a frame story a la Scheherazade's thousand and one, (5) and the language is actually good.
THE NAME OF THE WIND by Patrick Rothfuss. You two also share barbilic features, both in your beards's sizes and shapes and colors.
Short of that, as you say, the greatest fantasies are all foundational texts of peoples. So it's a lot to live up to in the modern world.
Unrelated: would you (have you) ever tried your hand at short science fiction and fantasy?
Dr. Hart, may I ask what your general thoughts are on the Farrer hypothesis as a possible solution to the synoptic problem, compared to the Q hypothesis?
I find the Q hypothesis more credible by far.
Thanks for posting, I’m here as a new reader and enjoy these long conversations.
You mentioned reading using a Kindle device and some of handicaps it presents including the inability to flip quickly through a book and that the device seems to encourage a straight read-through. Have you found ways to improve your Kindle experience over time?
On reading, have you written any essays about your practices in reading? I have read Adler’s “How to Read” which encourages different levels of reading to allow for some level of breadth and depth depending on the reader’s need. Do you have any methods that allow you to move through a text relatively quickly while still absorbing and appreciating it?
Actually, what I lamented was the inability to flip back easily to an earlier passage I might want to reread. I never actually race through; if anything, I tend to linger when a passage impresses me. So I’m not a good guide to economical reading.
Please, finish the review of the other Narnia books